1: % from paper_jan03.tex

2: %

3: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

4: %%

5: %% Modified 03 Jan 01

6: %%

7: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

8: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

9: 

10: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

11: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

12: %% any data that comes before this command.

13: 

14: %% The command below calls the preprint style

15: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

16: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

17: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

18: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}

19: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

20: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

21: %\usepackage{graphicx}

22: %\usepackage{lscape}

23: %\usepackage{ulem}

24: 

25: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

26: 

27: 

28: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

29: 

30: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

31: 

32: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

33: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

34: %% the \begin{document} command.

35: %%

36: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

37: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

38: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

39: %% for information.

40: 

41: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

42: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

43: 

44: \def\r23{$R_{23}$}

45: \def\hii{\ion{H}{2}}

46: \def\ntot{[\ion{N}{2}]/[\ion{O}{2}]}

47: \def\ntha{[\ion{N}{2}]/H$\alpha$}

48: \def\otnt{[\ion{O}{3}]/[\ion{N}{2}]}

49: \def\kms{km~s$^{-1}$}

50: \def\cm2{cm$^{-2}$}

51: \def\hkpc{$~h_{70}^{-1}$ kpc}

52: \def\icm{cm$^{-2}$}

53: \def\lya{Ly$\alpha$}

54: \def\lyb{Ly$\beta$}

55: \def\lyc{Ly$\gamma$}

56: \def\mgtwo{\ion{Mg}{2}}

57: \def\nhi{N(\ion{H}{1})}

58: \def\gmr{$g-r$}

59: \def\ebmv{E(B$-$V)}

60: 

61: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

62: 

63: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

64: 

65: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

66: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

67: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

68: % usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

69: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.  Running heads

70: %% will not print in the manuscript style.

71: 

72: \shorttitle{Galaxy Pairs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey I}

73: \shortauthors{Ellison et al.}

74: 

75: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

76: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

77: 

78: \begin{document}

79: 

80: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

81: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

82: %% you desire.

83: 

84: \title{Galaxy Pairs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey I: Star Formation,

85: AGN Fraction, and the Luminosity/Mass-Metallicity Relation.}

86: 

87: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

88: %% author and affiliation information.

89: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

90: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

91: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

92: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.

93: \author{Sara L. Ellison\altaffilmark{1},

94: David R. Patton\altaffilmark{2,3},

95: Luc Simard\altaffilmark{4},

96: \& 

97: Alan W. McConnachie\altaffilmark{1}

98: }

99: 

100: \altaffiltext{1}{Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Victoria,  

101: 3800 Finnerty Rd, Victoria, V8P 1A1, British Columbia, Canada,

102: sarae@uvic.ca, alan@uvic.ca}

103: 

104: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Trent University, 

105: 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7B8, Canada, dpatton@trentu.ca}

106: 

107: \altaffiltext{3}{Visiting Researcher, Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy, 

108: University of Victoria,  

109: 3800 Finnerty Rd, Victoria, V8P 1A1, British Columbia, Canada}

110: 

111: \altaffiltext{4}{National Research Council of Canada,

112: Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, 5071 West

113: Saanich Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V9E 2E7, Canada,

114: luc.simard@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca}

115: 

116: 

117: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

118: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

119: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

120: %% affiliation.

121: 

122: 

123: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

124: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

125: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

126: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

127: %% editorial office after submission.

128: 

129: \begin{abstract}

130: We present a sample of 1716 galaxies with companions within $\Delta$v$<$

131: 500 \kms, $r_p <$ 80 \hkpc\ and stellar mass ratio $0.1 <$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 10$

132: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)

133: Data Release 4 (DR4).  The galaxy pairs are selected from the Main Galaxy

134: Sample using stringent and well-understood criteria for  redshift,

135: spectral quality, available stellar masses and metallicities.  

136: In agreement with previous studies, we find an enhancement in the

137: star formation rate (SFR) of galaxy pairs at projected separations 

138: $<$ 30--40 \hkpc.  

139: In addition, we find that this enhancement is highest (and extends 

140: to the greatest separations) for galaxies of approximately equal mass, the

141: so-called `major' pairs. However, SFR enhancement can still be detected

142: for a sample of galaxy pairs whose masses are within a factor of 10

143: of each other.  Based on these results, we define a sample

144: of close pairs ($\Delta$v$<$ 500 \kms, $r_p <$30 \hkpc,

145: $0.1 <$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 10$) which we use to investigate interaction 

146: induced effects in the luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relation.

147: In agreement with the one previous study of the LZ relation

148: in paired galaxies, we find an offset to lower

149: metallicities (by $\sim$ 0.1 dex) for a given luminosity for galaxies in pairs

150: compared to the control sample. We also present the first mass-metallicity

151: (MZ) relation comparison between paired galaxies and the field, 

152: and again find an offset to lower metallicities (by $\sim$ 0.05 dex)

153: for a given mass. The smaller offset in the MZ relation indicates that

154: both higher luminosities and lower metallicities may contribute

155: to the shift of pairs relative to the control in the LZ relation.

156: We show that the offset in the LZ relation

157: depends on galaxy half light radius, $r_h$.

158: Galaxies with $r_h \lesssim$ 3 \hkpc\ 

159: and with a close companion show a 0.05-0.1 dex downwards 

160: offset in metallicity compared to control galaxies of the same

161: size.  Larger galaxies do not show this offset

162: and have LZ and MZ relations consistent with the control sample. 

163: We investigate the physical impetus behind this empirical

164: dependence on $r_h$ and consider the galaxy's dynamical time

165: and bulge fractions as possible causes.  We conclude that the

166: former is unlikely to be a fundamental driver of the offset in

167: the LZ relation for paired galaxies, but that bulge fraction

168: may play a role.  Finally, we study the AGN fraction in both the

169: pair and control sample and find that whilst selecting galaxies

170: in different cuts of color and asymmetry yields different AGN

171: fractions, the fraction for pairs and the control sample are

172: consistent for a given set of selection criteria.  

173: This indicates that if AGN are

174: ignited as a result of interactions, this activity begins

175: later than the close pairs stage (i.e. once the merger is complete).

176: \end{abstract}

177: 

178: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

179: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

180: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

181: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

182: 

183: \keywords{galaxies:abundances--galaxies:ISM}

184: 

185: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

186: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

187: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

188: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

189: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

190: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

191: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

192: %% each reference.

193: 

194: \section{Introduction}

195: 

196: The evolutionary path followed by a galaxy is shaped by its merger

197: history, which in turn depends on its environment.  This dependence

198: is epitomized by the properties of galaxies in rich

199: environments such as clusters (e.g. Dressler 1980; Whitmore, Gilmore

200: \& Jones 1993; Balogh et al. 1998, 1999; Poggianti et al. 1999;

201: Pimbblet et al. 2002; Wake et al. 2005).

202: The effect of such high density living is generally to suppress star formation,

203: through mechanisms that can include cluster tidal fields, 

204: gas (ram pressure) stripping, and strangulation (e.g. Byrd \& Valtonen 1990;

205: Moore et al. 1999; Diaferio et al 2001). From this

206: point of view, one may expect to see the most extreme effects of

207: density-induced properties from environments that are rich

208: on scales of a few hundred kpc.  

209: However, it is now emerging that density on smaller scales 

210: can be the major impetus behind galaxy evolution (e.g. Lewis et al. 2002;

211: Gomez et al. 2003; Blanton \& Berlind 2007).  

212: Galaxies in compact groups, for example,

213: exhibit a clear tendency towards lower metallicities and older

214: stellar populations compared with isolated galaxies (e.g. Proctor et al.

215: 2004; Mendes de Oliveira et al. 2005; de la Rosa et al. 2007).

216: On these smaller scales, galaxy mergers provide the most obvious mechanism 

217: for change.  Simulations predict that prior to halted star formation,

218: there should be a phase of increased activity (e.g. Di Matteo,

219: Springel \& Hernquist 2005) which precedes the final merger, 

220: particularly in gas-rich systems.

221: Observations of early-stage galaxy interactions will therefore

222: complement those of rich environments to provide a more

223: complete picture of the evolutionary process.  In this sense,

224: close pairs or morphologically disturbed galaxies may be the

225: pre-cursors to the `red-and-dead' galaxies seen in dense 

226: environments.

227: 

228: The seminal study of the effect of interactions on galaxy colors

229: is the work of Larson \& Tinsley (1978).  

230: They found that disturbed galaxies in the

231: Arp catalogue had a wider spread of colors, including more

232: blue galaxies, than the field galaxies in the Hubble atlas.

233: In the last 30 years, this distinction in color has been confirmed

234: numerous times in larger samples. In general, galaxies with close companions,

235: including those showing clear signs of morphological asymmetry,

236: tend to have bluer (integrated)

237: optical colors (e.g. Carlberg et al. 1994; Patton

238: et al. 1997, 2005).  These results are indicative of enhanced

239: star formation, a scenario supported by high equivalent widths of H$\alpha$

240: emission when spectra are available (e.g. Kennicutt et al. 1987;

241: Barton, Geller \& Kenyon et al. 2000; Lambas et al. 2003;

242: Alonso et al. 2004; Nikolic, Cullen \& Alexander 2004).  

243: In turn, the star formation

244: heats galactic dust which emits thermally in the IR, leading

245: to an IR-excess in galaxy pairs (Kennicutt

246: et al. 1987; Xu \& Sulentic 1991; Geller et al. 2006).

247: This large body of observational data paints a clear picture of

248: enhanced star formation activity associated with galaxy proximity

249: on scales of a few tens of kpc.

250: 

251: Clues to the finer details of enhanced star formation can

252: be gleaned from galaxy simulations.

253: In the models of Mihos \& Hernquist (1994, 1996), the interaction-induced 

254: star formation occurs specifically in the central

255: regions (inner 1--2 kpc) of the galaxy, as a result of gas inflows.  

256: Observational evidence to support this theoretical prediction includes

257: 1) centrally peaked distributions of H$\alpha$ and continuum emission in

258: interacting galaxies (Bushouse 1987; Smith et al. 2007), 2) enhanced H$\alpha$

259: flux or suppressed metallicities determined from nuclear spectroscopy 

260: of interacting galaxies 

261: (e.g. Barton et al. 2000; Kewley, Geller \& Barton 2006) and 3) 

262: enhanced radio continuum emission in the central parts of

263: pairs of spiral galaxies, but not in their disks (Hummel 1981).

264: However, there are also claims for enhanced disk star formation

265: (e.g. Kennicutt et al. 1987).  At the same time,

266: models of interacting galaxies predict the nature of induced

267: star formation to depend sensitively on the mass distribution

268: in the galaxies.  For example, for interactions that are observed

269: early-on in the merging process, Mihos \& Hernquist (1996) found

270: that galaxies with shallower potentials (i.e. less bulge dominated)

271: more efficiently funnel gas to the center through the formation of

272: a bar.  Conversely, bulge dominated galaxies are minimally affected

273: by close interactions until the merger event is well advanced

274: (e.g. Cox et al. 2007).

275: 

276: The induced star formation activity associated with interactions

277: and mergers is expected to have an impact on the metallicity of

278: galaxy pairs.  There is a well established correlation between

279: luminosity and metallicity, which is a manifestation of a more

280: fundamental stellar mass-metallicity relation (e.g. Tremonti et al. 2004;

281: Salzer et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2006), which is likely

282: be be `disturbed' for interacting galaxies.  It is not clear

283: \textit{a priori} how these scaling relations between luminosity, mass

284: and metallicity might be affected by interactions.  The galaxy luminosity may 

285: significantly increase due to the additional star formation

286: experienced as a result of the merger.  The overall metallicity

287: of an interacting galaxy may first appear to decrease as metal-poor

288: gas flows into its inner regions.  However, we eventually expect

289: the metallicity to increase as the star formation proceeeds and

290: eventually returns its nucleosynthetic products into the interstellar

291: medium.  The end point metallicity will depend on a number of factors

292: such as the mass and metallicity of the inflowing gas, efficiency of

293: the starburst and the metal yield.  The first major observational

294: study of these effects was presented by Kewley et al. (2006a),

295: who found a shift towards lower metallicities by $\sim$ 0.2 dex

296: in galaxy pairs for a given luminosity, compared to a control sample.

297: Since their spectra included only the central 10\% of the galaxies'

298: light, Kewley et al. (2006a) interpreted this result as the signature

299: of metal-poor gas that had been funnelled into the center of the

300: galaxies.

301: 

302: As the merging process advances,  an expected consequence of the

303: gas funnelling might be the

304: ignition of an AGN.  Effectively all galaxies are thought to harbor

305: black holes at their centers, the masses of which correlate

306: on the mass of the galaxy's bulge component as measured through

307: stellar velocity dispersion (e.g. Marconi et al.

308: 2004; Shankar et al. 2004 and Ferrarese \& Ford 2005 for a review).  

309: Infall of

310: gas onto the black hole via a galaxy interaction is a natural

311: way to engage nuclear activity.  Indeed, it has previously been noted

312: that low redshift Seyfert galaxies often occur in groups

313: (e.g. Stauffer 1982) and that a high fraction of galaxies close

314: to AGN appear to be interacting (see the review by Barnes \&

315: Hernquist 1992).  However, although Seyfert galaxies may show evidence

316: for recent nuclear star formation (e.g. Storchi-Bergmann et al. 2001),

317: there is so far no evidence that AGN activity is enhanced in denser

318: environments relative to the field, including in close pairs

319: (e.g. Schmitt 2001; Sorrentino, Radovich \& Rifatto 2003; Alonso

320: et al. 2007).  Instead, AGN activity is best signalled by

321: morphological disturbances (e.g. Barnes \& Hernquist

322: 1992; Alonso et al. 2007).

323: 

324: Investigating the myriad effects of galaxy interactions clearly 

325: requires measurements of a suite of properties, including stellar mass,

326: star formation rates (SFRs), AGN 

327: contribution, metallicities, color and morphology as characterized

328: by measures such as bulge-to-total ratios and asymmetry.  Whilst

329: many of these properties have been previously studied (see above

330: references) no work to date has been able to combine all of

331: these parameters for a single, large sample.

332: In this regard the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)

333: is an excellent resource with both photometric and quality spectroscopic

334: data available for over half a million galaxies in the Data Release

335: 4 (DR4).  In this paper series (see also Patton

336: et al in preparation, henceforth Paper II, 

337: and other forthcoming papers) we have combined SDSS 

338: photometry with the results of

339: spectral synthesis modelling, which yield estimates for

340: properties such as the stellar mass, metallicity, star formation

341: rate and bulge and disk image decomposition in five filters (Simard,

342: in preparation) to yield morphological parameters.  Therefore,

343: this sample provides the first coherent dataset for which such

344: a wide suite of galaxy parameters can be investigated, and the

345: relationships between these properties studied in a systematic way.

346: Moreover, the statistical power of the SDSS allows us 

347: to be highly selective

348: in the way we form our sample.  Therefore, although our final

349: pairs sample is not the largest to date (c.f. 

350: Alonso et al. 2006; Paper II), our selection criteria

351: are amongst the most stringent.  This is particularly important

352: when using spectroscopic data to determine quantities such as

353: metallicity, where the combination of several emission lines

354: can become very sensitive to poor S/N (e.g. Kewley \& Ellison,

355: 2008). In Paper II we investigate the photometric

356: properties of SDSS galaxies in close pairs.  

357: %Our main results include the finding that

358: %galaxies with companions with transverse separations $<$ 30 \hkpc\ 

359: %and $\Delta v < 500$ \kms\ tend

360: %to have bluer, more dominant bulges and lumpier morphologies

361: %than the field population.

362: In this paper, we combine the basic survey properties of

363: a sample of galaxy pairs with spectroscopic properties determined by e.g.

364: Kauffmann et al. (2003b), Brinchmann et al. (2004), Tremonti et al. (2004) and

365: Kewley \& Ellison (2008).  This allows us to investigate

366: the sensitivity of metallicity, AGN incidence, mass and star

367: formation rate on a galaxy's proximity to a companion.

368: 

369: The layout of this paper is as follows.  In \S\ref{sample_sec}

370: we describe the compilation of our galaxy pairs and control

371: samples.  In \S\ref{sfr_sec} we use the wide pairs sample defined

372: in \S\ref{sample_sec} to study the effect of pair proximity

373: and relative stellar masses on star formation rate.  Based on

374: these results, we define a sample of close pairs which are

375: most likely to exhibit interaction-induced effects.  In \S\ref{met_sec}

376: we investigate the luminosity- and mass-metallicity relations

377: and in \S\ref{agn_sec} the AGN fraction in galaxies with close companions.

378: Each of the three science sections (\S\ref{sfr_sec} -- \ref{agn_sec})

379: can be read largely independently, although we recommend that

380: all readers understand the sample selection laid out in \S\ref{sample_sec}.  

381: We summarize the full results of this paper in \S\ref{summary_sec}.

382: 

383: We adopt a concordance cosmology of $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, $\Omega_M = 0.3$,

384: $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc.

385: 

386: \section{Sample Selection}\label{sample_sec}

387: 

388: Our galaxy pairs sample is selected from the DR4 of the SDSS and

389: includes requirements based on both photometric and spectroscopic

390: selection.  The imaging portion of the DR4 covers 6670 deg$^2$ in

391: five bands and the spectroscopic catalog is magnitude limited for

392: extinction corrected Petrosian $r<17.77$.  

393: To construct our galaxy samples, we use

394: the DR4 catalog of 567,486 galaxies compiled by the Munich group 

395: \footnote{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/}.  Pipeline

396: processing which fits galaxy templates and

397: spectral synthesis models to the spectra

398: yields physical properties such as stellar masses and star formation rates

399: as well as measurements of line fluxes (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 2003b;

400: Brinchmann et al. 2004; 

401: Tremonti et al. 2004).  Although metallicities are available

402: for the majority of these galaxies, Ellison \& Kewley (2005)

403: and Kewley \& Ellison (2008) have shown that

404: different empirical calibrations can yield metallicities that vary

405: by up to a factor of 3.  The Tremonti et al. (2004) metallicities

406: are amongst the highest of these calibrations.  We used the published

407: line fluxes to calculate the metallicities according to

408: the `recommended' method of Kewley \& Dopita (2002)

409: which solves iteratively for metallicity and ionization parameter.

410: We made this selection for two reasons.  First, the calibration of

411: Kewley \& Dopita (2002) yields one of the tightest mass-metallicity 

412: relations (Kewley \& Ellison 2008).  Second, the metallicity conversions

413: between various strong line diagnostics presented by Kewley \& Ellison

414: (2008) show that conversions to/from the Kewley \& Dopita (2002) 

415: calibration exhibit one of the smallest scatters.

416: Other properties used in this paper (e.g. SFR and

417: stellar mass) are taken directly from the catalogs made

418: generously available by the Munich team.  

419: 

420: Our sample selection differs

421: importantly from that of Paper II, which focuses on the photometric

422: properties of galaxies in pairs.  Although spectroscopic redshifts 

423: and stellar masses were

424: required for pair selection in Paper II, no other spectral requirement

425: was included in the selection criteria.  However, since we will

426: be focussed on properties that are derived from spectra, such as

427: SFR and metallicity, our selection criteria are more stringent,

428: and our sample correspondingly smaller.  Moreover, since our metallicity

429: determinations require moderately high S/N in the emission lines (see 

430: below), the galaxies in this sample are necessarily star-forming

431: or AGN dominated.  There are no quiescent, inactive (`red and dead')

432: galaxies in our sample.

433: 

434: From the catalog of over half a million SDSS DR4 galaxies we select 

435: galaxies that fulfill the following criteria:

436: 

437: \begin{enumerate}

438: 

439: \item Galaxies must have extinction corrected Petrosian

440: magnitudes in the range 14.5 $< r$ $\le$ 17.77.  The faint limit

441: matches the criterion of Sloan's Main Galaxy Sample and ensures

442: a high completeness and unbiased selection for mass estimates (see

443: below). The bright limit avoids deblending problems that confuse the

444: identification of close pairs (Strauss et al. 2002).

445: We also required that the objects were classified as galaxies from

446: the SDSS imaging (\textit{SpecPhoto.Type=3}) and were classified

447: spectrally as either a galaxy or QSO (\textit{SpecPhoto.SpecClass=2,3}).

448: 

449: \item Galaxies must be unique spectroscopic objects.  We reject duplicates

450: in the initial sample of 567,486 galaxies by including the single

451: galaxy that has been classified as `science worthy' (flag scienceprimary=1 

452: in the SDSS `SpecObjAll' table).  In a handful ($<20$) of cases, a single

453: photometric object (galaxy) is associated with two spectroscopic

454: objects.  Such cases are often highly disturbed galaxies which,

455: for example, have double nuclei or distinctive tidal tails.  We

456: reject these objects from our sample, but will re-visit them

457: in a future paper.

458: 

459: \item  The redshift must be $z < 0.16$ and the SDSS SpecObjAll parameter

460: which measures the redshift confidence $zconf > 0.7$.  

461: We exclude higher redshifts

462: since there is a tail of rare galaxies at $z>0.16$ which is not

463: seen in the pairs sample, simply due to small number statistics.

464: Imposing a redshift cut is common practice in pairs' studies in order

465: to limit the effects of both evolution and aperture effects

466: (e.g. Kewley et al. 2006; Woods \& Geller 2007), 

467: although we re-visit the redshift distribution at a more

468: sophisticated level below.

469: 

470: \item The error on the emission line flux must be less than one fifth

471: of the measured flux in all of the following emission lines: [OII]

472: $\lambda$3727, H$\beta$, [OIII] $\lambda$5007, H$\alpha$, [NII]

473: $\lambda$6584 and [SII] $\lambda \lambda$ 6717, 6731.  This criterion

474: ensures a high effective S/N which in turn facilitates accurate

475: classification of the galaxies as either star-forming or AGN-dominated

476: (e.g. Kewley et al.  2001; Kauffmann et al. 2003a) and for accurate

477: metallicity determination from empirical strong line diagnostics

478: (e.g., Kobulnicky, Kennicutt \& Pizagno 1999; Kewley \& Ellison, 2008).

479: This criterion automatically selects star-forming galaxies and will

480: exclude passively evolving or `red and dead' galaxies, as well as

481: galaxies with very high extinction and metal-poor galaxies with

482: faint emission lines.    

483: 

484: \item Stellar mass estimates must be available (e.g. Kauffmann

485: et al 2003b; Tremonti

486: et al. 2004).  These are available in the Munich catalogs and

487: are derived from spectral template fitting and have typical uncertainties

488: $\sim$ 0.1 dex.  Drory, Bender \& Hopp (2004)

489: have shown that the spectrally determined stellar 

490: masses compare well with those derived

491: from optical and IR colors and they are good surrogates for

492: the dynamical mass when log M$_{\star} > 10$M$_{\odot}$

493: (see also Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000).  At lower stellar masses,

494: M$_{\star}$ is larger than the dynamical mass by $<$ 0.4 dex

495: (Drory et al. 2004).

496: 

497: \item Metallicities as calculated by the Kewley \& Dopita (2002) 

498: diagnostic must be available, although we do not require that 

499: \textit{both} galaxies in a pair have known metallicities.  

500: 

501: \item Galaxies must be classified as star-forming and not AGN

502: dominated, according to the line diagnostic criteria given

503: in Kewley et al. (2001).  We impose this criterion since metallicities

504: derived from strong line calibrations assume a stellar ionizing

505: background and are not applicable if there is a (local) AGN component.

506: Recently, Kewley et al. (2006b) 

507: have proposed a new AGN removal scheme that is more stringent than

508: the original Kewley et al. (2001) criteria.  However,

509: Kewley \& Ellison (2008) have shown

510: that, for metallicities derived from the Kewley \& Dopita (2002)

511: strong line calibration, the mass metallicity relation is

512: identical for the Kewley et al. (2001) and Kewley et al. (2006b)

513: AGN filtering schemes.  We remove the criterion of AGN exclusion for

514: our study of AGN fractions in \S\ref{agn_sec}.\\

515: 

516: \noindent  From this master sample, we then select galaxies with

517: companions that we shall refer to as `galaxy pairs', although $\sim$ 5\%

518: consists of galaxies in triples and a minority of higher multiples.

519: For inclusion in the sample of galaxy pairs, we further require that

520: 

521: \item   Galaxies have one or more companions with projected

522: physical separations of $r_p < 80$ \hkpc.  

523: Although previous observational and theoretical

524: studies have found 30 \hkpc\ ($\sim$ 20 

525: $~h_{100}^{-1}$ kpc) to be the approximate scale on which

526: pairs start to exhibit distinct properties compared with the field 

527: (e.g. Barton et al. 2000; Patton et al 2000;

528: Lambas et al. 2003; Alonso et al. 2004;

529: Nikolic, Cullen \& Alexander 2004; Perez et al. 2006a), we consider

530: wider pairs in order to investigate trends in separation.

531: All pairs with separations $r_p < 15$ \hkpc\ were inspected visually,

532: since erroneous pair identifications do occur at small

533: separations.  The majority of spurious pairs were at a $r_p < 5$ \hkpc\

534: and occur e.g. when an HII region in a single galaxy is identified as 

535: separate galaxy.  For separations $r_p > 10$ \hkpc, the fraction

536: of spurious pair identifications is less than 1\%.

537: 

538: \item The rest-frame

539: velocity difference of a galaxy pair must be $\Delta v < 500$

540: \kms.  This velocity offset was selected in order to provide a

541: balance between contamination and statistics.  Although a much smaller

542: velocity separation reduces contamination, it also reduces the

543: overall sample size, which may ultimately become a limiting 

544: factor in pair statistics. The trade-off between these effects

545: has been addressed in Patton et al. (2000).  

546: 

547: \item Relative stellar masses must be within a factor of 10.  

548: Although we expect to see more interaction-induced

549: effects in pairs of almost equal mass

550: (e.g. Woods, Geller \& Barton 2006; Cox et al. 2007; Woods

551: \& Geller 2007), we

552: include a wide range of mass ratios in order to investigate

553: the relative impact of major and minor interactions.

554: 

555: \end{enumerate}

556: 

557: 

558: If a galaxy fulfills the first seven of the above criteria, but not

559: the latter three, it is a candidate for our control sample.  

560: A galaxy fulfilling all ten criteria may be potentially included 

561: in our sample of wide pairs.  Before constructing the final control

562: and wide pairs samples, we make two further restrictions in order

563: to make the two samples directly comparable.  Both of these restrictions

564: are driven by the requirement that the redshift and stellar 

565: mass distributions of

566: the pairs and control samples should be statistically indistinguishable.

567: This is an important requirement since the distributions of

568: stellar mass and redshift can impact the observed ranges in

569: properties such as luminosity and star formation

570: rate.  The redshifts of the galaxies selected simply from the above criteria

571: are shown in Figure \ref{z_histo_nocull} where the histogram of 

572: pairs' redshifts has been roughly normalized to the number of 

573: galaxies in the control sample for display purposes.

574: Clearly, the redshift distribution

575: of the pairs is skewed towards lower values than the control,

576: which could potentially bias our results.  This can largely be understood

577: by examining the lower panel of Figure \ref{z_histo_nocull} which

578: shows the projected 

579: separation of pairs as a function of redshift and demonstrates a

580: clear excess of pairs at low redshift and wide separation.  This

581: is mostly due to the spectroscopic follow-up strategy of the SDSS survey.

582: There is a 55 arcsecond fiber collision limit due to the size of the

583: fiber housing, which prevents pairs with angular separations less 

584: than this from

585: being observed spectroscopically on the same plate\footnote{At $z=0.05$,

586: 1 arcsec $\sim$ 1 \hkpc}.  However,

587: contiguous plates have considerable overlap and some sky regions 

588: are observed more than once, so that many close

589: pairs exist in the final spectroscopic catalog.  

590: The net effect on our preliminary pairs sample is that the spectroscopic 

591: completeness drops sharply below $55\arcsec$, leading to the relative 

592: over-abundance of pairs with wide physical separations at low redshifts 

593: in Figure  \ref{z_histo_nocull}.

594: Fortunately, it is straightforward to model and correct for this effect.  

595: Patton \& Atfield (2008) find that

596: the ratio of spectroscopic to photometric pairs decreases from $\sim$ 80\% 

597: at angular separations $\theta > 55\arcsec$ to $\sim$ 26\% (on average) at 

598: smaller separations.  

599: We therefore make a first attempt to correct the disparity in redshift 

600: distributions by randomly excluding $54/80$ = 67.5\% of galaxies

601: in pairs with $\theta > 55\arcsec$.

602: We use this cull to compile our final wide pairs sample,

603: which contains 1915 paired galaxies before AGN removal 

604: and 1716 galaxies with one or more companions after AGN removal.

605: 

606: When the stellar mass ratio of the pairs is not highly discrepant

607: ($0.3< $M$_1$/M$_2 \lesssim 3$) the cull described above yields

608: redshift distributions for the pairs and control samples that are

609: statistically indistinguishable.  However, for more contrasting mass

610: ratios, the redshift distributions remain statistically different.

611: This is a common, well-known feature of pairs' samples (e.g., Patton

612: et al. 2000; 2005) and is due to the magnitude limited nature of the

613: parent galaxy sample and the associated limit in dynamic range.  Pairs

614: with very disparate stellar mass ratios are biased towards low

615: redshifts, because the magnitude limit of the survey hinders their

616: detection (i.e. detection of a much lower mass, fainter companion) at

617: higher redshifts.  Since we want to be able to study pairs with

618: stellar mass ratios up to 10, the control sample requires further

619: culling.  At this point, a simple prune in redshift is insufficient,

620: due to the strong correlation between mass and redshift.  At $z

621: \lesssim 0.05$ galaxies with stellar masses ranging from approximately

622: 10$^{8.5}$ to 10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ are detected.  

623: At higher redshifts, the lower

624: mass galaxies are no longer detected, since they are generally too

625: faint.  We therefore have to prune the control sample simultaneously

626: in stellar mass and redshift.  This is achieved by matching one

627: control galaxy to each paired galaxy in mass-redshift space and

628: repeating (without replacement) as many times as possible while

629: requiring that the KS probability of the

630: control--pair mass and redshift distributions be consistent with each

631: other at at least the 30\% level.  The matching process is done before

632: any removal of AGN-dominated galaxies 

633: so that the analysis of \S\ref{agn_sec} (on AGN

634: fractions) can be achieved.  For each of the 1915 (pre-AGN removal)

635: paired galaxies,

636: there are 23 control galaxies, i.e. the control sample contains 44045

637: galaxies before AGN-dominated galaxies are removed.  

638: The KS probabilities that these samples of pairs and

639: control galaxies are indistinguishable in redshift and stellar mass is

640: 32\% and 34\% respectively (i.e. no formal statistical difference).

641: Once the AGN-dominated galaxies have been removed, as is required for

642: the majority of our analysis, the samples are reduced to 1716 paired

643: galaxies and 40095 control galaxies, a reduction in each case by

644: approximately 10\%.  Figure \ref{z_histo_cull} shows the redshift and

645: stellar mass distributions for these fiducial samples.  For both

646: paired and control samples, the mean stellar mass is log $M_{\star}$ 

647: = 10.1 and the mean

648: redshift is $z=0.073$.  We can now be confident that our control

649: sample is well-matched to our pairs sample and should contain no

650: observational bias that will affect our assessment of proximity

651: induced effects.

652: 

653: The strict selection criteria that we impose mean that our sample

654: of galaxies is not complete in either magnitude or volume.

655: As noted above, the S/N criterion in particular will lead to

656: a sample that excludes (at least some) galaxies that are highly

657: reddened, very metal-poor and not actively star-forming.   However, the

658: same selection biases will apply equally to the control and

659: the pairs samples, allowing us to make differential comparisons

660: between the two.  

661: As described in the above discussion, our sample of pairs is 

662: also not complete.

663: This should not introduce any bias into our pairs sample, since 

664: spectroscopic incompleteness does not depend significantly on the 

665: intrinsic properties of the galaxies.  

666: However, due to spectroscopic incompleteness, many true 

667: pairs will have a redshift measured for only one member galaxy, which 

668: may then fall into the control sample.  Fortunately, any resulting 

669: contamination of the control sample is negligible, since only $\sim 2$\% 

670: of galaxies are found in close pairs (see Patton \& Atfield 2008).

671: 

672: Given that we are interested in the effects of mergers/interactions, 

673: it is also important to acknowledge the fact that some of the pairs in our 

674: sample will not be close enough for such encounters to occur.

675: This contamination is on the order of 50\% 

676: for the closer pairs  ($r_p < 30$ \hkpc) in our sample 

677: (Patton \& Atfield 2008), and rises as pair separation increases 

678: (Alonso et al. 2004, Perez et al. 2006a).  While we do not attempt 

679: to correct for this explicitly, we infer that 

680: (a) any differences seen between close pairs and the control sample 

681: are likely to be underestimated and (b) the wider pairs are likely 

682: to suffer from increasing contamination due to non-interacting systems.

683: 

684: One other parameter that may affect measured spectral properties

685: is the fiber covering fraction (CF).

686: Although aperture effects are likely to affect galaxy metallicities

687: (Kewley, Jansen \& Geller 2005; Ellison \& Kewley 2005) we 

688: do not make any \textit{a priori} cuts in CF.  This is

689: mainly because, after the above culls, the CFs are consistent

690: between the pairs and control samples, see Figure \ref{z_histo_cull}.

691: Moreover, we will be explicitly investigating 

692: the impact of CF,  which is calculated 

693: by comparing the galaxy's photometric g' band Petrosian magnitude

694: with the fiber magnitude in the same filter, as a free parameter

695: in sections \ref{sfr_sec} and \ref{met_sec}.  However, we note that 

696: the quantities of stellar mass and SFR are corrected for aperture

697: effects (Brinchmann et al. 2004) and therefore represent total

698: quantities.

699: 

700: It is worth noting that one of the novel properties of our sample

701: is the stellar mass selection criterion, whereas most previous samples 

702: have made no requirement on the relative fluxes/masses of their

703: visually identified pairs.  Moreover, when cuts have been made

704: in order to investigate the effect of relative mass, flux is

705: usually used as a surrogate for mass (e.g. Woods et al.

706: 2006; Woods \& Geller 2007). 

707: In Figure \ref{m1m2_f1f2} we show the impact

708: of this assumption by plotting relative fluxes versus relative stellar

709: masses.  The fact that the distribution of flux to mass ratios

710: is flatter than 1:1, means that for a given flux ratio cut

711: the completeness rate for the same mass ratio is quite high,

712: but the contamination is significant.  For example, a flux selection

713: which requires a ratio within 2:1 selects 86\% of galaxy pairs with

714: masses whose ratios are within 2:1.  However, 46\% of the galaxies selected

715: by this flux cut will have actual mass ratios outside the 2:1 range, leading to

716: a high contamination rate.  Selection by relative flux could therefore

717: potentially dilute properties that depend sensitively on relative stellar mass.

718: The reason that the correlation between relative fluxes and masses

719: is flatter than unity in  Figure \ref{m1m2_f1f2} can be understood in terms of

720: specific star formation rates (SSFR).  Recently, Zheng et al. (2007)

721: have shown convincingly that SSFR, i.e. SFR per unit mass, is higher

722: for lower mass galaxies.  In turn, this broadly translates to a higher flux

723: per stellar mass (F/M) for lower mass galaxies.  Therefore, when the

724: M$_1$/M$_2$ ratio is less than unity, i.e. the low mass galaxy is

725: in the numerator, this translates to a generally

726: higher F$_1$/F$_2$, because F$_1$/M$_1 > $F$_2$/M$_2$.

727: 

728: 

729: With the stringent criteria outlined above, we have not only

730: constructed one of the largest, but also one of the

731: most rigorously selected samples of 

732: galaxy pairs to date.  Moreover, with the combination of a wide range

733: of derived spectral properties, photometric measurements and

734: morphological decomposition, we have an extensive arsenal with

735: which to tackle the effects of galaxy proximity.

736: 

737: \section{Star Formation Rate In Galaxy Pairs}\label{sfr_sec}

738: 

739: In this section, we investigate the effects of projected separation,

740: relative stellar masses and fiber covering fraction on the SFR of

741: paired galaxies.  We use the results to select a pairs sample

742: for the investigation of proximity effects on the LZ and MZ relations

743: in the following section.

744: 

745: In the top panel of Figure \ref{sfr_m1m2} we show the star formation rate

746: as a function of galaxy separation for the wide pairs in our sample.    

747: The figure demonstrates that galaxies in pairs with separations

748: $\le$ 30 \hkpc\ have a median SFR that is

749: higher than the control galaxies, by up to 40\%, at 1--2 $\sigma$ 

750: significance.   This result is

751: consistent with previous studies of SFRs in close pairs of

752: galaxies (e.g. Barton et al. 2000; Lambas et al. 2003;

753: Nikolic et al. 2004; Geller et al. 2006).   However, Barton

754: et al. (2008) have suggested that the level of excess star formation

755: in close pairs may have been under-estimated in these previous

756: works due to the typically higher density environments inhabited

757: by pairs relative to control galaxies.  This conclusion may

758: also apply to this work, although we discuss this further in the

759: next subsection. 

760: 

761: \subsection{Star Formation and Relative Galactic Stellar Mass}

762: 

763: We expect (e.g. Lambas et al. 2003; Woods et al. 2006; Bekki, Shioya

764: \& Whiting 2006; Cox et al. 2007; Woods \& Geller 2007) that pairs

765: with almost equal masses (`major mergers/interactions') will exhibit

766: more pronounced interaction-induced effects than unequal (`minor')

767: mass encounters.  Although dynamical mass may be the fundamental

768: parameter which governs the outcome of galaxy interactions, stellar

769: mass is both more readily determined from observations and is a

770: reasonable surrogate for dynamical mass above $10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$

771: (e.g. Brinchmann \& Ellis

772: 2000; Drory et al. 2004).  Moreover, stellar mass is a quantity that

773: is directly traced through many simulations, e.g. the minor pairs

774: models of Cox et al. (2007).

775: 

776: Only a handful of simulations have studied the effect of star formation

777: in minor mergers either in general (Mihos \& Hernquist 1994; Cox et al., 

778: 2007) or for specific cases (e.g. Mastropietro et al. 2005

779: for the Milky Way -- LMC).  Based on this limited modelling, it has

780: been found that induced central star formation in the larger galaxy 

781: of an unequal mass merger can \textit{eventually} occur, albeit at a 

782: lower level than expected

783: in a major merger, and usually when the interaction is well advanced, i.e. 

784: after several gigayears.    In this section, we investigate whether

785: unequal mass pairs can be affected by galaxy proximity and compare 

786: our results with pairs whose galaxies have comparable stellar masses.

787: The only previous observational studies to assess the effects in

788: minor mergers in close galaxy pairs were those of

789: Woods et al. (2006) and Woods \& Geller (2007).  

790: The latter paper, which benefits from significantly better statistics

791: than the former, finds that the specific SFR of the less massive (as inferred

792: from a fainter magnitude) galaxy in a minor pair is enhanced compared

793: to the field, whereas the more massive galaxy is not.

794: However, these two previous studies relied upon

795: relative magnitudes, and as we pointed out in \S\ref{sample_sec},

796: this can lead to a high rate of contamination.

797: In this work, we use the measured stellar masses, corrected for

798: aperture bias, determined by spectral modelling and compare our results

799: to the flux-selected minor pairs of Woods \& Geller (2007)

800: 

801: We begin by assessing the impact of our mass

802: ratio criterion of $0.1 <$ M$_1$:M$_2 <10$ by considering

803: sub-samples of galaxy pairs with different stellar mass ratios.

804: For each mass cut, the matching of the control sample in

805: stellar mass and redshift is repeated as described in section \ref{sample_sec}

806: for our fiducial (wide) pairs sample.  This ensures that the distribution

807: of stellar masses is comparable between each pairs' sub-sample and its

808: control sample.

809: In Figure \ref{sfr_m1m2} we show the SFR as a function of

810: separation for three different mass ranges (stellar mass ratios within

811: 1:10, 1:3 and 1:2).  From this Figure we draw two conclusions.

812: First, the enhancement in SFR persists out to at least 30 \hkpc\ for all

813: three mass ranges considered, with the closer stellar mass ratio pairs showing

814: an increase out to 40 \hkpc.  Second, and perhaps more interesting, is

815: that the amount of SFR enhancement increases (and becomes more

816: significant) for pairs whose stellar masses are most similar to one another.

817: 

818: The enhancement, which we found in the previous subsection to be 40\%

819: for pairs with stellar mass ratios within 1:10, increases to 60\% and

820: 70\% for ratios within 3:1 and 2:1 respectively and with $\sim 2

821: \sigma$ significance in each case.  This confirms

822: quantitatively the suggestion that major interactions, i.e. those

823: between almost equal mass galaxies, will induce the most significant

824: effects in one another.  These results also demonstrate that the SFR

825: can be affected even in samples with relatively discrepant masses, at

826: least up to a ratio of 1:10 (as also concluded by Woods \& Geller 2007

827: for their minor pairs).  At large separations ($r_p \ga 50$ \hkpc) we

828: see an upturn in the SFR of the pairs.  This is a complex effect that

829: is driven by a combination of contamination from projected pairs that

830: are not truly interacting and the way in which our control sample is

831: constructed.  Since the control sample has been culled in redshift and

832: mass in order to match the distribution in the pairs sample, it is not

833: representative of the true field population.  Since pairs tend to be

834: found in higher density environments (e.g. Barton et al. 2008),

835: the mass-matched control sample has a higher mean

836: stellar mass than the field (i.e. the pre-cull control sample).  In

837: turn, this means that the control sample galaxies are themselves

838: biased towards denser environments and are therefore likely to have,

839: on average, lower SFRs than the field.  At wide separations, an

840: increasing number of pairs are not truly interacting, leading to an

841: increased contamination of the sample.  The SFRs at these wide

842: separations are therefore averages of the values of true interacting

843: pairs (which at wide separations probably have SFRs tending towards

844: the control mean) and contaminating field galaxies (which tend to have

845: a higher SFRs than the control mean).  This leads to an apparent

846: upturn in the SFRs at wide separations.  The prominence of this upturn

847: will depend on the actual mass matching of each mass ratio sub-sample.

848: Since the 0.1 $<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < $ 10 mass-matched control sample is

849: most similar to the field sample (i.e. mass distribution of the

850: pre-cull control sample), the upturn is much smaller (in fact, absent)

851: than in the 0.5 $<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < $ 2 mass-matched control sample,

852: which is most discrepant from the field mass distribution.  This

853: explains why the majority of previous surveys have not seen this upturn:

854: they do not impose relative flux or mass cuts, hence their

855: SFR versus separation correlations most closely approximate to the

856: top panel of Figure \ref{sfr_m1m2}.  For example, Lambas

857: et al. (2003) see an upturn at $r_p > 60$ kpc for their

858: $L_1 \sim L_2$ sample, but not in their $L_1 >> L_2$ sample.

859: Nonetheless, an upturn such as

860: that seen in the middle and bottom panels of Figure \ref{sfr_m1m2}

861: has been reported by Perez et al. (2006a) in their

862: analysis of mock galaxy pair catalogs from cosmological simulations,

863: by Nikolic et al. (2004) in their study of SDSS pairs and, as mentioned

864: above, by Lambas et al. (2003).  

865: We conclude that in the absence of projection effects, the SFR of

866: pairs with $r_p > 50$ \hkpc\ would tend to the control value.

867: 

868: Next, we classify major pairs as those with mass ratios within 2:1 and

869: minor pairs as those with more discrepant masses\footnote{This is

870: different to the definition of Woods \& Geller

871: (2007) who considered the major/minor boundary as a 2 magnitude difference

872: (factor 6.25) in brightness.}.  We further distinguish

873: between the more massive galaxy in a minor pair 

874: ($M_{\rm gal} / M_{\rm companion}

875: > 2$) and the less massive galaxy in a minor pair 

876: ($M_{\rm gal} / M_{\rm companion}

877: < 0.5$).  Since a number of fundamental galaxy

878: properties such as SFR depend on stellar mass (e.g. Brinchmann et al. 2004), 

879: simply using the matched control sample for comparison with minor/major 

880: pairs (whose mass distributions will be very different from one

881: another) would not give a true indication of relative effects.

882: We have therefore further adapted our control samples to be equivalent

883: in mass distribution by selecting a control galaxy matched in

884: stellar mass to each paired galaxy.

885: 

886: In Figure \ref{sfr_mass} we show the total SFR as a function

887: of galaxy pair separation for 3 stellar mass scenarios:   major pairs

888: and the more/less massive galaxies in minor pairs.  

889: In the top panels of we show individual

890: SFRs, and in the middle panel, the median values in bins of

891: 13 \hkpc.   The shaded region in the middle panel

892: shows the median 

893: SFR (with vertical height corresponding to the $\sigma/\sqrt{N}$)

894: in the matched control sample.

895: The overlap of the scatter in the

896: data points (vertical error bars on the binned values) with the gray

897: bar gives an indication of consistency with field values.

898: In the lower panel we show the SFR enhancement relative to the

899: control sample by normalizing each bin to the control median. 

900: The stellar mass matching of the control

901: fields is particularly important here.

902: It can be seen that the median values for the three middle

903: panels are highest for the highest mass sub-samples\footnote{

904: Whilst the \textit{specific} SFR is higher for lower mass

905: galaxies (e.g. Brinchmann et al. 2004) 

906: the total SFR is higher for higher mass galaxies}.  

907: 

908: Figure \ref{sfr_mass} demonstrates the, by now, familiar enhancement

909: of SFR at small separations for galaxies with approximately equal

910: masses, see also Figure \ref{sfr_m1m2}.  Although the result is not

911: highly significant ($\sim 1-2 \sigma$), we also find tentative

912: evidence for higher SFR for the less massive galaxy in a pair at both

913: close separations and at $\sim$ 60--70 \hkpc\ (see the previous

914: section for discussion on the turn-around in enhanced SFR as a

915: function of separation).  A similar conclusion has been drawn by Woods

916: \& Geller (2007).  Although some of the binned SDSS data points for

917: the more massive galaxy in a pair are also above the field mean, the

918: size of the error bars makes this result less significant (barely $1

919: \sigma$) and difficult to draw conclusions from.  If confirmed, these

920: results would be consistent with the less massive pair member in an

921: unequal mass interaction being susceptible to enhanced star formation,

922: although less so than galaxies in equal mass interactions.  In turn,

923: this result has interesting implications for cosmic metal enrichment:

924: Whereas low mass galaxies can usually remain gas-rich because of low

925: star formation efficiency, strong bursts of star formation during

926: interaction may increase metal production which may be more easily

927: dispersed into the surrounding intergalactic medium. However, the

928: results from this section are inconclusive and the analysis of Woods

929: \& Geller (2007) remain the strongest evidence for enhanced star

930: formation in less massive galaxies in minor pairs.  In a complementary

931: study of star-forming galaxies in the SDSS, Li et al.

932: (2008a) have also recently found evidence that SFRs are more

933: enhanced in lower mass galaxies with companions. Possible reasons

934: that we have not found similarly significant results include 1) the

935: different definition of major and minor pairs and 2) the smaller

936: sample size of our work, mostly due to the criteria imposed in \S

937: \ref{sample_sec} (although Woods \& Geller 2007 use the somewhat

938: larger DR5, compared to our DR4 sample).  The major pairs sample of

939: Woods \& Geller (2007) is 60\% larger than ours, whilst the minor

940: pairs sample is contains almost twice the number of galaxies.  The

941: median luminosity ratio for the Woods \& Geller minor sample is $\sim$

942: 11 (compared with a median mass ratio of 3.85 in our sample), and

943: $\sim$ 4 for the major sample (compared with our median major mass

944: ratio of 1.38).  Therefore, if luminosity ratio were taken as a

945: substitute for mass ratio, more than half of the Woods \& Geller

946: (2007) major pairs sample would fall into our definition of a minor

947: pair.  In future work, it will be interesting to examine how selection

948: based on relative stellar masses and luminosities (e.g. Figure

949: \ref{m1m2_f1f2}) and the definition of major and minor pairs may affect

950: results.

951: 

952: Our data confirm the conclusion of previous

953: work (e.g. Barton et al. 2000; Lambas et al. 2003; Alonso

954: et al. 2004; Nikolic, Cullen \& Alexander 2004; Li et al. 2008a) that 

955: galaxies in pairs closer than $\sim$ 30 \hkpc\ exhibit SFRs

956: that are higher than in the `field'.  For the rest of

957: this paper, we therefore define a sample of `close pairs' where

958: $r_p < 30$ \hkpc.  Although we have shown that approximately equal

959: stellar mass pairs show higher proximity-induced SFRs, we elect to

960: use the $0.1<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 10$ sample in order to maximise the

961: statistical significance of our work.  This selection also facilitates

962: comparisons with previous works, which generally do not have relative

963: stellar mass or flux limits in their pairs selection.

964: The $r_p <30$ \hkpc, $\Delta v <$ 500 \kms\ and  $0.1<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 10$

965: criteria now forms our fiducial pairs sample unless otherwise stated.

966: The merging timescale for these galaxies  

967: is $\sim$ 250 -- 500 Myrs (e.g. Patton et al. 2000; Masjedi et al. 2006).

968: 

969: \section{Metallicities of Galaxy Pairs}\label{met_sec}

970: 

971: In the previous section, we used SFR as a function of separation

972: to define a `close pairs' sample with $r_h < 30$ \hkpc\ as those

973: pairs most likely to exhibit interaction induced effects.

974: We now use this sample to investigate the impact of proximity

975: on galaxy metallicity using this close pairs sample.

976: 

977: The metallicities of the SDSS galaxies can be determined using

978: strong emission line diagnostics that are calibrated either

979: empirically against `direct' electron temperature determinations,

980: or against theoretical photoionization models.  A wide range

981: of such metallicity diagnostics is currently on the market,

982: some of the most popular include various empirical calibrations of 

983: $R_{23}$ originally formulated by Pagel et al. (1979) (e.g. McGaugh 1991;

984: Zaritsky, Kennicutt \& Huchra 1994) empirical [NII]/H$\alpha$

985: calibrations (e.g. Denicolo, Terlevich \& Terlevich 2002;

986: Pettini \& Pagel 2004) and calibrations which solve iteratively

987: for ionization parameter using photoionzation models (e.g.

988: Kewley \& Dopita 2002; Kobulnicky \& Kewley 2004).  It is well

989: known that at high metallicities these strong line diagnostics

990: show a positive offset relative to the metallicities determined from electron

991: temperature methods (e.g. Bresolin, Garnett \& Kennicutt 2004;

992: Bresolin 2007).  Moreover, Kewley \& Ellison (2008) have shown that

993: strong, systematic differences exist between strong line

994: diagnostics and have stressed the importance of using a single

995: calibration where possible.  In this paper, we use the Kewley

996: \& Dopita (2002) `recommended' method which can both overcome the

997: usual double-value degeneracy of the R$_{23}$ method, and also

998: solves for the ionization parameter.

999: 

1000: As noted in \S \ref{sample_sec} the (necessary) selection of galaxies

1001: with strong emission lines means that our sample contains a dearth

1002: of metal-poor galaxies.  However, not only does the consistent

1003: selection of control and paired galaxies ensure an internally fair comparison,

1004: but repeating our analysis with less stringent emission line detection

1005: constraints (3$\sigma$ rather than 5$\sigma$) yields identical

1006: results for all of the tests performed in this section.

1007: 

1008: \subsection{The Luminosity Metallicity Relation}\label{LZ_sec}

1009: 

1010: The relationship between luminosity and metallicity is well-established

1011: over 8 magnitudes in M$_B$ (e.g. Salzer et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2006) 

1012: and out to redshifts $z \sim$ 1 (e.g. Kobulnicky \& Kewley 2004; Maier

1013: et al. 2005). 

1014: The reason for the luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relation,

1015: and the tighter mass-metallicity (MZ) relation is still unclear.

1016: Although yields from luminous, high mass galaxies indicate that

1017: the relation is driven by the depth of the potential well and

1018: mass loss during star formation

1019: (e.g. Tremonti et al. 2004), lower mass galaxies show

1020: a large scatter in effective yield, with some showing values

1021: as high as the most massive galaxies (Lee et al. 2006).

1022: Simulations of chemical evolution offer a variety of alternatives,

1023: including variable initial mass functions (Koppen, Weidner \& Kroupa

1024: 2007), star formation efficiency (Brooks et al. 2007) and the

1025: interplay between poor-metal gas inflow and mass-loaded winds

1026: (Finlator \& Dav\'e 2007).  Ellison et al. (2008) have recently

1027: shown that the normalization of the MZ relation depends on

1028: specific SFR and $r_h$, and conclude that differences in star formation

1029: efficiencies can explain these dependencies.  

1030: However, the basic form of the relation

1031: remains intact over the full range in these properties and apparently

1032: does not depend sensitively

1033: on large-scale environment (Mouhcine, Baldry \& Bamford 2007).  

1034: 

1035: Regardless of the origin of the LZ relation, the enhanced star formation

1036: discussed in the previous section should ultimately impact on the

1037: correlation of luminosity and metallicity in close galaxy pairs.

1038: The direction of this impact is dependent on timescales.  If a galaxy's

1039: metallicity is measured after an interaction-driven starburst is

1040: complete, then we may expect an enhanced metallicity in the HII regions

1041: where star formation has occurred.  Conversely, if we

1042: measure the metallicity of the region experiencing the starburst

1043: whilst it is ongoing, the inflow of more metal-poor gas from the

1044: outer regions of the galaxy may decrease the HII region metallicity.

1045: Shifts in luminosity may also be applicable due to enhanced star formation.

1046: This question has been recently tackled by Kewley et al. (2006a)

1047: who used 86 galaxies in pairs selected from the CfA2 redshift survey

1048: and compared them with a control sample from the Nearby Field Galaxy

1049: Survey (NFGS).  For both samples, nuclear spectra containing $\sim$ 10\% of 

1050: the galaxy's light were used for the metallicity determinations.

1051: Kewley et al. (2006a) found that galaxies with separations $<$ 30 \hkpc\

1052: \footnote{We have converted the separations used by Kewley et al.,

1053: who quote distances in units of $~h_{100}^{-1}$ kpc, to our

1054: cosmology and convention of \hkpc} have metallicities that are

1055: offset downwards by 0.2 dex at a given luminosity.  Further observational

1056: evidence that merger-induced starbursts lead to lower metallicities

1057: comes from studies of ultra-luminous infra-red galaxies (ULIRGs; Rupke,

1058: Veilleux \& Baker 2007) and compact ultra-violet luminous galaxies

1059: (UVLGs; Hoopes et al. 2008).  These populations,

1060: believed to have been recently involved in merger events, 

1061: are more metal-poor by up to a factor of two compared to SDSS galaxies

1062: of the same mass.  The simulations

1063: of Perez et al. (2006b) also support the concept of metal-poor

1064: gas inflow in pairs.  They find that the gas phase metallicity of

1065: galaxies in simulated pairs is typically 0.2 dex higher when the

1066: integrated metallicity over 2 optical radii is compared to that

1067: over half an optical radius.

1068: 

1069: In Figure \ref{LZ} we show the LZ relation for our SDSS samples of

1070: pairs and control galaxies.  In the top left panel we show all

1071: galaxies in our close pairs sample, i.e. with transverse projected

1072: separations $r_p < 30$ \hkpc.  Kewley et al. (2006a) have argued that

1073: offsets from the field LZ relation will be most clear when the spectra

1074: are of a nuclear nature, i.e.  only cover the central few kpc of the

1075: galaxy where the starburst is occuring.  We therefore plot the LZ

1076: relation for three different CF cuts.  In order to make any offsets

1077: between the field and pairs more clear, in Figure \ref{LZ_bin}, we

1078: show binned versions of all the SDSS pairs, as well as for the various

1079: CF cuts. We note that due to the exclusion of very metal-poor galaxies

1080: in our sample, it is possible that any downward shift in metallicity

1081: in the pairs sample is under-estimated.   

1082: For comparison, we also show the Kewley et

1083: al. (2006a) CfA pairs sample and their NFGS control sample, both as

1084: individual galaxies and binned.  The visual impression that the CfA

1085: pairs of Kewley et al. (2006a) have lower metallicities for their

1086: luminosity than NFGS control galaxies is confirmed quantitatively with

1087: a 2D KS test which shows that the LZ distribution of the two samples

1088: differs at the 98\% confidence level.

1089: 

1090: If we consider the SDSS sample as a whole (top left panels of

1091: Figures \ref{LZ} and \ref{LZ_bin}), we see a mild tendency

1092: towards lower metallicities for pairs compared with the control

1093: sample.  However, the offset is small, $<$0.05 dex, compared to

1094: the offset seen by Kewley et al. (2006a), which is typically

1095: 0.1--0.2 dex.  The main difference between

1096: the SDSS sample and the NFGS/CfA sample studied by Kewley

1097: et al. (2006a) is that the latter had

1098: nuclear spectra with CF$ \sim 10$\%.  The majority

1099: of the SDSS galaxies have much higher covering fractions (Figure

1100: \ref{z_histo_cull}).  If the effect observed by Kewley et al.

1101: (2006a) is therefore truly nuclear,

1102: then the typically higher covering fractions of the SDSS fibers

1103: may hide the impact of gas dilution in the galaxies' centers.

1104: It would therefore be more appropriate to consider only the SDSS galaxies

1105: (in both pairs and control sample) with CF$<$10\%.  The top right

1106: panels in Figures \ref{LZ} and \ref{LZ_bin} show the individual galaxies,

1107: and binned metallicities for the CF$<$10\% criterion.  Although

1108: our sample of CF$<$10\% pairs is smaller than the CfA (23 galaxies, 

1109: compared with 37 in the CfA), the scatter in metallicity is

1110: also smaller for a given M$_B$, leading to smaller error bars

1111: (which represent the standard error on the mean).  The SDSS 

1112: CF$<$10\% control sample is also much larger than the NFGS: 2060

1113: galaxies compared with 43 at comparable separations.  Figure \ref{LZ_bin}

1114: therefore shows the interesting result that, at least for intermediate

1115: luminosity galaxies, SDSS pairs with CF$<$10\% have marginally

1116: higher metallicities

1117: for their luminosity than the control sample.  Recall that this offset 

1118: is in the opposite sense to the CfA pairs studied by Kewley et al. (2006a).  

1119: A 2D KS test gives a 3\% probability that the SDSS control and pairs 

1120: sample have the same LZ distributions.  As stated above, the KS probability 

1121: is 2\% for the Kewley et al. samples, so both datasets give statistically

1122: significant results, but in contrary directions.

1123: It is worth noting that the covering fractions for the CfA and SDSS

1124: samples are calculated slightly differently: Kewley et al. consider the

1125: fraction of light in the slit relative to the $B26$ isophote, whereas

1126: we consider the fiber magnitude relative to the Petrosian magnitude

1127: in the $g$-band.  However, this can not explain the trend

1128: of our result, i.e., that we see a larger offset in the pairs' LZ

1129: relation relative to the control for higher CFs, which is contrary

1130: to the expectation from nuclear metallicity dilution.

1131: 

1132: \subsection{Comparison with the work of Kewley et al. (2006a)}\label{ljk_sec}

1133: 

1134: The results in  the previous subsection indicate an

1135: apparent discrepancy in the relative metallicities of galaxy pairs

1136: in the SDSS versus the CfA samples for nuclear (CF$<$10\%)

1137: spectra.  On the one hand,

1138: Kewley et al. (2006a) find low metallicities at a given luminosity

1139: in close pairs, whereas we find tentative evidence for

1140: high metallicities compared

1141: with a control sample when the CF$<$10\%.  Conversely, we do find

1142: lower metallicities in pairs when the CF$>$20\% (Figure

1143: \ref{LZ_bin}), a regime in which Kewley et al. (2006a)

1144: have little data.  In

1145: this subsection we investigate the cause of this apparent discrepancy.

1146: 

1147: First, we consider whether the small number of low CF galaxies

1148: in the SDSS (23, versus 37 in the CfA) could lead to disagreement

1149: relative to the nuclear LZ relation of Kewley et al. (2006a).    

1150: We quantify the effect of small number statistics by 

1151: bootstrapping 10,000 samples of 23 galaxy pairs

1152: from the CfA sample and calculating the 2D KS probability compared

1153: with the NFGS control sample.  This test simulates the effects of the

1154: smaller number of pairs in the SDSS compared with the CfA, i.e.

1155: by testing whether the CfA/NFGS comparison would have detected

1156: an LZ offset if it had only had as many pair galaxies as the

1157: small CF bin of the SDSS.  We find that for samples of 23 pairs

1158: a significant KS probability of $<$0.05 is achieved in 86\% of the

1159: bootstrap renditions 

1160: and a probability of $<$0.02 for 63\% of trials.  Therefore,

1161: although we can not completely rule out the possibility that

1162: small numbers are the cause of the apparent discrepancy between

1163: the SDSS and CfA nuclear LZ relation for pairs, it seems unlikely.

1164: 

1165: We next consider

1166: whether there any obvious differences between the selection

1167: of Kewley et al. (2006a) and our samples.  Both works rely on

1168: pair identification from transverse (projected) separation and 

1169: relative velocity.  We have selected our close pairs sample $r_p < 30$

1170: \hkpc\ to match the closest separation bin of Kewley et al. (2006a).

1171: Our velocity cut is somewhat more stringent than Kewley et al.,

1172: 500 km/s rather than 1000 km/s.  However, repeating the LZ and MZ

1173: analyses with a 1000 km/s cut for the SDSS pairs does not change 

1174: our results (increasing the velocity range only increases our pairs

1175: sample by 7\%).  The CfA pairs sample has a lower redshift range

1176: than the SDSS, the former having a lower redshift cut-off of

1177: $z=0.0077$ and a median redshift of $z=0.018$,

1178: which is close to the low $z$ cut-off in the SDSS.  However, we consider it

1179: unlikely that evolutionary effects can be significant over the

1180: redshift ranges covered by the two surveys.  Ellison \& Kewley

1181: (2005) and Kewley \& Ellison (2008) have also stressed the importance

1182: of using the same metallicity diagnostics in comparisons,

1183: since there can be a factor of three offset for different calibrations.

1184: Both Kewley et al. (2006a) and our work both use the Kewley \& Dopita (2002)

1185: `recommended' metallicity calibration, so there should be no offset

1186: due to diagnostic differences.  At this point, it is

1187: instructive to compare the two control samples of this work

1188: and Kewley et al. (2006a).  Although the selection of the CfA 

1189: sample is done in the

1190: $B$-band, as opposed to the $r$-band selection of SDSS pairs,

1191: Figure \ref{compare_kewley} shows that a similar range in M$_B$

1192: is probed by both samples (although the latter extends to slightly

1193: more extreme values at both ends of the M$_B$ distribution, thanks to

1194: the larger sample).  Figure \ref{compare_kewley} also shows that,

1195: despite our caveat in \S \ref{sample_sec} that we may be missing low

1196: metallicity galaxies, the SDSS sample is not deficient in sub-solar 

1197: abundance galaxies compared with the CfA.

1198: Nonetheless, from Figure \ref{compare_kewley}

1199: it is clear that the NFGS control galaxies are inconsistent

1200: with the SDSS control; a 2D KS test rules out the null

1201: hypothesis with 99.8\% confidence.  Therefore, despite apparently

1202: similar selection in terms of redshift, projected separation,

1203: $\Delta$v, metallicity diagnostic and CF, the LZ distributions of 

1204: the NFGS and SDSS \textit{control} samples are significantly different.

1205: 

1206: A possible clue as to the origin of the difference between the

1207: CfA/NFGS and SDSS samples is revealed by the trend in LZ offset with

1208: CF seen in Figure \ref{LZ_bin}.   Although the SDSS pairs show mildly enhanced

1209: metallicities for CF$<$10\%, for $10<$ CF $<20$\% there is no offset

1210: compared with the control, but at $20<$ CF $<50$\% the pairs are

1211: systematically more metal-poor.  Since CF will obviously be

1212: a strong function of galaxy half light radius, 

1213: so the trend in LZ offset with CF might actually be a

1214: trend in galaxy size.  If confirmed, this would imply that galaxies

1215: with smaller $r_h$ tend to have low metallicities for their

1216: luminosity/mass, whereas larger galaxies may be offset in the opposite

1217: direction.  In Figure \ref{rh_histo} we compare the $r_h$

1218: distributions of the CfA pairs with the SDSS pairs with two CF cuts:

1219: CF$<$10\% and $20<$ CF $<50$\%.  The histogram clearly shows that the

1220: CfA pairs have a $r_h$ distribution that is skewed towards smaller

1221: sizes than the SDSS CF$<$10\% pairs.  Therefore, although these two

1222: samples have similar covering fractions, the size distribution of

1223: galaxies is very different.  On the other hand, the SDSS $20<$ CF

1224: $<50$\% CF and CfA pairs have very similar $r_h$ distributions.  In

1225: turn, the LZ relations of these two samples (CfA pairs and SDSS pairs

1226: with $20<$ CF $<50$\%) show concordantly low metallicities for a given

1227: luminosity.  We can see this explicitly in Figure \ref{LZ_rh} where we

1228: plot the LZ relation for different half light radii; galaxies with

1229: $r_h < 3$ \hkpc\ are metal-deficient for their luminosity, but this

1230: effect is absent for larger galaxies.  The small enhancement in

1231: metallicity that was present for small CFs in Figure \ref{LZ_bin} is

1232: absent for the large $r_h$ sub-sample in Figure \ref{LZ_rh}.  This may

1233: be due to the fact that nuclear spectra are required to see the

1234: effect, i.e. the galaxies need to be large \textit{and} the spectra

1235: must have small covering fractions.  Our sample is not large enough to

1236: test this hypothesis, but it would be clearly interesting to obtain

1237: more nuclear spectra of galaxies with $r_h >$ 6 \hkpc\ in the future.

1238: Finally, the results shown in Figures \ref {LZ_bin} and \ref{LZ_rh}

1239: also demonstrate that the impact of low metallicity gas infall is seen

1240: not only in the CF$\sim$ 10\% nuclear spectra of the CfA pairs, but

1241: also in the larger covering fractions of the SDSS pairs.  This

1242: indicates that the offset in the LZ relation may be driven by changes

1243: that occur on scales larger than `nuclear'.  There are (at least) two

1244: reasons why this might be the case.  First, we may be observing the

1245: galaxies early enough in their interaction that the gas flows are

1246: still on-going, i.e.  the metal poor gas is still on its way to the

1247: center.  This would imply that the offset in the LZ plane on scales of

1248: several kpc is highly transient. Alternatively, galaxy interactions,

1249: which are thought to enhance bar formation (e.g. Gerin, Combes \&

1250: Athanassoula 1990) and contribute to central gas flows (e.g. Friedli

1251: \& Benz 1993), may result in galaxies with flatter abundance gradients

1252: (e.g. Martin \& Roy 1994).  Combined with the transport of metal-poor

1253: gas to the center, this could result in a longer lasting suppression

1254: of the LZ relation in some galaxy pairs.  We return to the reason for

1255: the offset in the LZ relation in section \ref{shift_sec}.

1256: 

1257: \subsection{The Mass Metallicity Relation}

1258: 

1259: We repeat the analysis of the previous section, but now

1260: replace luminosity with stellar mass.  In Figure \ref{MZ} we show the MZ 

1261: relation for our control and

1262: close pairs samples for different cuts in covering fraction.  Comparison

1263: with Figure \ref{LZ} highlights the result of Tremonti et al. (2004)

1264: that the MZ relation is much tighter than the LZ relation, with a 

1265: 1$\sigma$ spread $<$ 0.2 dex for a given stellar mass.     

1266: In Figure \ref{MZ_bin} we show the

1267: binned MZ relation for close pairs and control samples 

1268: for all the SDSS galaxies as well as for the

1269: three CF cuts. Although there is a slight

1270: tendency towards marginally lower metallicities for a given

1271: mass in the full pairs sample, as seen in the binned LZ relation,

1272: the shift is again $<$ 0.05 dex, and not significant given

1273: the error bars.  However, the CF$<$10\% sample again shows a significant

1274: enhancement in metallicity at intermediate masses.  The

1275: KS probability that the MZ distributions of the CF$<$10\% pair

1276: and control samples being drawn from the same population

1277: is 2\%, i.e. as significant as the LZ result for the CfA sample 

1278: (Kewley et al. 2006a) and slightly more significant than the LZ

1279: result for the SDSS pairs presented above.  

1280: We see a similar trend in the offset in metallicities as a function

1281: of covering fraction in the MZ relation as in the LZ relation --

1282: an increase in metallicity for small CFs and lower metallicities

1283: for pairs with high CF spectra.

1284: However, although the offset towards lower metallicities in the

1285: 20$<$ CF $<$ 50\% CF bin is systematic in MZ, it is slightly

1286: less statistically significant than in the LZ.  

1287: Whereas the offset in the LZ relation

1288: for 20$<$ CF $<$ 50\% is 0.05 -- 0.1 dex, with the largest offsets at

1289: the lowest luminosities, the offset in MZ is consistently

1290: around 0.05 dex.  This indicates that the brightest galaxies (M$_B <

1291: -20$) may be exhibiting a pure metallicity shift.  This is perhaps

1292: not surprising since a starburst of fixed luminosity will have

1293: a fractionally small impact on the luminosity of an intrinsically

1294: bright galaxy.  Moreover, the flat slope of the LZ relation at

1295: bright magnitudes means that any luminosity shift will need to be

1296: large in order to be detected.  However, if the metallicity shift

1297: is about 0.05 dex downwards for all luminosities/masses (as

1298: indicated in Figure \ref{MZ_bin}), there may be an additional

1299: luminosity component to the LZ relations shift that contributes

1300: up to $\sim$ 0.4 mag.

1301: 

1302: Kewley et al. (2006a) argued that the offset observed in the LZ relation

1303: determined for their CfA pairs sample was driven by a difference in

1304: metallicity rather than luminosity.  Their argument was based on the fact

1305: that their absolute magnitudes were derived from the $r$-band where

1306: new star formation will contribute little continuum flux.  Barton

1307: et al. (2001) also concluded that triggered star formation will not

1308: significantly increase the luminosity of a paired galaxy, based on

1309: comparisons of the Tully-Fisher relation.  However,

1310: the marginally larger offset that we find in the LZ relation, particularly

1311: at M$_B > -20$, compared to the

1312: MZ relation for a given CF, raises the question as to whether 

1313: some of the shift may be

1314: due to an increased luminosity in pairs, as well as a lower metallicity.

1315: Although there is little continuum flux expected from a starburst in

1316: the $r$-band, the H$\alpha$ line is present in this bandpass and

1317: may contribute significantly.  To test whether the shift in the LZ

1318: relation may be due to increased luminosity in close galaxy pairs,

1319: we calculate the absolute magnitude in four SDSS filters ($u, g, r$ and $i$)

1320: and use these magnitudes in the LZ relation.  If an increase in

1321: luminosity from a central starburst is shifting the LZ relation of pairs

1322: towards brighter absolute magnitudes, we expect to see this effect

1323: more strongly in the blue filters.

1324: 

1325: In Figure \ref{LZ_ugri} we show the LZ relation derived for 

1326: 20$<$ CF $<$ 50\% for SDSS control and pairs samples for absolute magnitudes

1327: in four filters.  We first note that the LZ relation is much flatter

1328: for bluer filters, an effect particularly noticeable in the $u$-band.

1329: This is probably due to the high sensitivity of the $u$-band magnitude

1330: to instantaneous star formation which smears out the underlying

1331: relation of metallicity with mass.  The correlation of $i$-band magnitude

1332: with metallicity very closely resembles the MZ relation since redder

1333: filters more faithfully represent the underlying stellar mass.

1334: Figure \ref{LZ_ugri} shows that the horizontal shift in the linear

1335: (fainter absolute magnitude) part of the LZ relation is shifted 

1336: marginally more in the $u$-band

1337: filter ($\sim$ 0.75 mags) than in the other filters ($\sim$ 0.6 mags).

1338: Combined with the smaller shift in the MZ relation, this  

1339: indicates that part of the overall shift of pairs relative to

1340: control galaxies in the LZ relation

1341: may be due to the brightening of pairs experiencing a starburst.

1342: This idea is further supported by the brighter median M$_B$ in the

1343: close pairs sample: $-20.15$ compared with $-19.94$ for the

1344: control galaxies.  Recall that the two samples are well matched in

1345: mass (see Figure \ref{z_histo_cull}), so that this difference in

1346: absolute magnitude is likely associated with the additional star

1347: formation in pairs found in \S\ref{sfr_sec}.  Shioya, Bekki \&

1348: Couch (2004) model the change in absolute magnitude in starbursting

1349: mergers and predict a total brightening of $\sim$ 1 magnitude in

1350: M$_B$.  However, fading happens rapidly and a brightening of

1351: a few tenths of a magnitude is commensurate with a time of

1352: only a few hundred million years after the burst.

1353: 

1354: \subsection{On the Shift in the LZ/MZ Relations}\label{shift_sec}

1355: 

1356: The results in the previous sections, and shown in Figures

1357: \ref{LZ_bin} and \ref{MZ_bin}, hint that the magnitude and direction

1358: of the offset in the LZ/MZ relations is a function of covering

1359: fraction.  We have also shown that the dependence on CF is a

1360: manifestation of a strong empirical dependence on the intrinsic galaxy

1361: half light radius.  Ellison et al. (2008) have shown that a

1362: segregation in the MZ relation exists even within the control sample

1363: of galaxies.  However, in the control sample of non-paired galaxies

1364: used by Ellison et al. (2008) there is a shift towards lower

1365: metallicities for larger radii.  In the pairs sample, it is the

1366: galaxies with the smallest half light radii that show lower

1367: metallicities for a given mass.  The mechanism for the metallicity

1368: shift in pairs is therefore likely to be driven by a different

1369: physical cause.  Based on qualitatively similar downward shifts in 

1370: metallicity for

1371: a given stellar mass in ULIRGs and compact UVLGs (Rupke et al. 2007; Hoopes

1372: et al. 2008), but the absence of a significant

1373: dependence on large scale environment

1374: (Mouhcine et al. 2007), it is likely that this effect is due to merger

1375: activity.  In this subsection we explore two possible

1376: `fundamental' parameters that may be the underlying cause of the $r_h$

1377: dependence of the MZ relation for paired galaxies.

1378: 

1379: \subsubsection{Dynamical Time}

1380: 

1381: Finlator \& Dav\'e (2007) have recently proposed a general model

1382: (i.e. not specific to galaxy pairs) for the existence and form

1383: of the MZ relation.  These authors suggest that the MZ (and by

1384: association, the LZ) relation 

1385: can be understood via the interplay of gas accretion from the intergalactic

1386: medium, star formation and subsequent mass loss through winds.

1387: In this model, there is an equilibrium metallicity for a galaxy

1388: of a given mass from which the galaxy may be displaced 

1389: by the inflow of metal-poor

1390: material.  In response to the deposition of fresh fuel, which in

1391: turn increases the gas surface density, the galaxy will experience

1392: an increase in its SFR.  A key parameter in this model is the

1393: ratio of the galaxy's dynamical time ($t_{\rm dyn}$) and the dilution

1394: time ($t_d$).  The dilution time is defined as the time taken

1395: for the galaxy to recover from the injection of metal

1396: poor gas, and return to its equilibrium metallicity.  If $t_d < 

1397: t_{\rm dyn}$ then the galaxy `recovers' its equilibrium

1398: metallicity promptly, leading to very little scatter in the MZ relation.  

1399: Conversely, if $t_d > t_{\rm dyn}$, then the galaxy struggles to 

1400: recover promptly from inflows.  In Figure \ref{tdyn} we test the

1401: effect of $t_{\rm dyn}$ in the normalization of the LZ relation

1402: by splitting the pairs and control galaxies

1403: by dynamical time, which we calculate from $r_h$ and stellar mass.

1404: For short dynamical times, we find a tendency for pairs to have low

1405: metallicities for their luminosity.  This could be understood, in the

1406: context of the model described above, if galaxies with short $t_{\rm dyn}$

1407: are those that most efficiently funnel metal-poor gas.  However, it

1408: is then difficult to explain why galaxies with longer dynamical times

1409: should have metallicities higher than

1410: the control sample.  Enhanced metallicities might be associated with

1411: induced star formation that has already deposited its metals back

1412: into the ISM, but this is unexpected for long $t_{\rm dyn}$, which should

1413: have less prompt induced star formation than galaxies with short 

1414: $t_{\rm dyn}$. We therefore conclude that dynamical time is unlikely to be the

1415: fundamental parameter driving the sensitivity of the LZ in pairs

1416: to $r_h$.  This is perhaps not surprising given that the gas accretion

1417: in the `field' galaxies simulated by Finlator \& Dav\'e (2007)

1418: occurs via a very different mode than the infall of gas to the nucleus

1419: of a paired galaxy.  I.e. the former is dependent on the free-fall

1420: time of gas from the intergalactic medium, whereas the latter requires

1421: funnelling of gas to the center that is already settled in the outer part

1422: of the galactic disk.

1423: 

1424: \subsubsection{Bulge Fraction}

1425: 

1426: The segregation of the galaxy pair LZ/MZ empirically depends on $r_h$.

1427: Galaxies with smaller sizes for a given mass will have a higher mass

1428: density, whereas galaxies with larger $r_h$ and the same mass will

1429: have shallower mass potentials.  We therefore next consider whether it

1430: is the spatial mass distribution in galaxies that drives the offset

1431: in the LZ and MZ relations of paired galaxies.  Simulations

1432: of galaxy interactions have previously shown that one of the

1433: factors that regulates gas inflow and nuclear starbursts is the

1434: relative prominence of the galaxy's bulge (e.g. Mihos \& Hernquist 

1435: 1994, 1996; Cox et al. 2007).

1436: Bulges appear to provide stability against gas inflow, so that

1437: galaxies with low bulge fractions more efficiently funnel gas to their

1438: centers.  We therefore investigate whether bulge fraction

1439: may be driving the different offsets in the LZ/MZ relations

1440: for different galaxy half light radii.

1441: 

1442: In Figure \ref{bti_histo} we show the histogram of $i$-band

1443: bulge-to-total (B/T) ratios for galaxies with close companions.  

1444: We chose the

1445: $i$-band for this comparison since the B/T fractions measured

1446: in blue filters may primarily measure any increase in nuclear

1447: star formation (e.g. Paper II).  The $i$-band is selected to be

1448: a good indicator of the underlying mass distribution between

1449: the bulge and the disk. In Figure \ref{bti_histo} we have

1450: further divided the close pairs sample into those galaxies which

1451: have small half light radii, $r_h < 3$ \hkpc, and those with

1452: larger sizes.  Figure

1453: \ref{bti_histo} shows that small $r_h$ galaxies in close pairs tend

1454: to have higher bulge fractions than large galaxies.  The

1455: KS probability that the two distributions are the same is 0.007.

1456: 

1457: Figure \ref{bti_histo} shows a potential link between $r_h$

1458: and B/T.    Cox et al. (2007) have suggested that galaxies in unequal mass

1459: mergers with B/T$>0.3$ will have 

1460: burst efficiencies 3 times lower than a bulgeless galaxy in

1461: an otherwise identical interaction\footnote{Cox et al. (2007)

1462: deal with bulge-to-disk ratios, which we convert to B/T for

1463: consistency.}.  Paired galaxies with $r_h < 3$ \hkpc\ appear

1464: to have a marked dearth of bulge fractions below this value,

1465: indicating that small galaxies may be less efficient at funnelling

1466: gas to their centers for star formation. A possible explanation

1467: for the offsets in the LZ relation seen in Figure \ref{LZ_bin}

1468: may therefore be the connection between galaxy size and typical

1469: bulge fraction.  Indeed, dividing the galaxy samples by B/T does

1470: show an LZ offset for large, but not small, bulge fractions (see

1471: Figure \ref{tdyn}).  This can be explained if smaller galaxies 

1472: ($r_h < 3$ \hkpc), which tend to have B/T $>$ 0.3 (see Figure

1473: \ref{bti_histo}), have their

1474: metal-poor gas reservoirs disrupted in an interaction, leading to an overall

1475: injection of metal poor gas into the central $\sim$ 5--10 \hkpc.

1476: However, this gas is not efficiently funnelled into the very

1477: center of the galaxy, leading to less efficient star formation

1478: and overall lower gas metallicity extending over a projected

1479: area of several kpc.  Although this gas may eventually experience a starburst,

1480: Cox et al. (2007) have shown that this event is delayed relative

1481: to the initial (first passage) starburst by $\sim$ 1 Gyr.

1482: Larger galaxies, which are more likely to have B/T$<0.3$,

1483: more efficiently funnel gas to their centers, leading to

1484: a prompt nuclear starburst and rapid metal-enrichment and recovery

1485: to metallicity levels commensurate with the control sample

1486: (Figure \ref{tdyn}).

1487: 

1488: To further test this hypothesis, in Figure \ref{gmr_bulge_bt}

1489: we plot the bulge $g-r$ colors for 3 cuts in

1490: B/T, where the cuts are applied to both the control and pairs

1491: samples.  We find that the galaxies with the smallest

1492: bulge fractions (B/T$<0.3$) have no difference in

1493: $g-r$ color, compared to 0.31 and 0.18 for

1494: $0.3<$ B/T $<0.6$ and B/T $>$ 0.6 respectively.  Indeed, the distribution

1495: of $g-r$ colors for the lowest bulge fraction galaxies is

1496: actually consistent (KS probability = 0.19)

1497: between the control sample and the pairs.  The key to interpreting

1498: this result is relative timescales: that of color changes following

1499: a starburst versus interaction timescales.  The scenario decribed above,

1500: in which $r_h$ depends on B/T, the latter parameter being a 

1501: determining factor in the efficiency of nuclear star formation,

1502: could explain the $g-r$ distributions of Figure \ref{gmr_bulge_bt}

1503: if the timescale for post-starburst color changes is shorter than,

1504: or comparable to, the dynamical time of the pair. 

1505: Bruzual \& Charlot (1993) show that for a 10$^7$ year burst of

1506: star formation, the optical colors evolve most rapidly over the

1507: first 10$^8$ years after the starburst.  After this point, both

1508: the models and actual star cluster data show a relative plateau

1509: in color, changing by less than 0.1 mag in $B-V$ up to 1 gigayear.

1510: Moreover, the fading of a starburst is typically a few magnitudes

1511: from $10^7 - 10^8$ years after the burst, after which it will

1512: usually be barely visible on top of the continuous, ambient star-forming

1513: galaxy population (Sawicki, private communication), although the exact

1514: contrast will of course depend on the relative strength of the starburst.

1515: The typical dynamical time of close pairs is of the order of a 

1516: few hundred Myrs to half a gigayear

1517: (Mihos \& Hernquist 1996; Barton et al. 2000; Patton et al. 2000).

1518: We therefore speculate that one explanation of our observations

1519: is that many of the close pairs in our sample have already experienced

1520: gas disruption from an initial pass $\sim 10^8$ years ago.  

1521: In the larger galaxies (which have a tendency towards smaller bulge fractions) 

1522: this has resulted in a prompt nuclear starburst and metal-enrichment

1523: leading to high metallicities for a given luminosity compared with

1524: the field, but a stellar

1525: population that has already lost its massive O and B stars.

1526: In the smaller galaxies, the re-distribution of metal-poor gas

1527: has led to a lower metallicity for a given luminosity compared with

1528: the field.  In these bulge dominated galaxies, star formation still

1529: occurs, but is delayed relative to the first passage (Cox et al. 2007), 

1530: so we still see the evidence of on-going activity in their colors.

1531: 

1532: 

1533: \section{AGN Fraction}\label{agn_sec}

1534: 

1535: There is strong observational and theoretical evidence linking the

1536: interactions of galaxies and the onset of nuclear activity.

1537: Storchi-Bergmann et al. (2001) found a correlation between central

1538: star formation activity and AGN in interacting galaxies, providing

1539: a causal link between the two processes.  This observation was confirmed

1540: by Kauffmann et al. (2003a) who found that the star formation in AGN

1541: dominated galaxies is distributed over the central few kpc of active

1542: galaxies.  Kauffmann et al. (2003a) also found that a

1543: larger fraction of AGN galaxies (as opposed to non-active massive

1544: galaxies) have experienced significant bursts of star formation in

1545: the past few gigayears.  Alonso et al. (2007) draw a similar conclusion,

1546: based on lower values of the break index $D_n$(4000) which indicates

1547: more recent star formation in visibly merging galaxies with AGN activity.

1548: In previous sections, we have presented evidence for central starburst

1549: activity in close galaxy pairs; do we see any evidence for enhanced

1550: AGN activity in our pairs that has followed the starburst?

1551: 

1552: To investigate this question, we remove the criterion that galaxies must be

1553: classified as HII (star-forming) galaxies and also include those

1554: that have been classified as dominated by an AGN ionizing spectrum.

1555: The classification of galaxies as star-forming or AGN dominated

1556: can be achieved with a variety of line strength diagnostics; in this

1557: work we use the diagnostic of Kewley et al. (2001).  This leads

1558: to an approximate 10\% increase in the size of our pairs and control 

1559: samples.  However, we  impose the criterion that the

1560: bulge-to-total ratio be in the range

1561: $0<$ B/T $<$1, i.e. that the galaxy is fitted with two components

1562: and excludes pure disks and pure bulges, 

1563: which significantly reduces the number of

1564: galaxies considered.  Furthermore, although 

1565: our main pairs sample is still defined as containing galaxies with

1566: companions whose separations lie in the range $r<$ 30 \hkpc, we

1567: also consider a wide pairs sample of galaxies whose companions

1568: have separations $30 < r < 80$ \hkpc.  The wide pairs sample acts

1569: as a consistency check, since any differences due to proximity

1570: should be weaker in the wide pairs sample than the sample of close

1571: pairs.  A summary of the numbers

1572: of galaxies in the various samples considered in this section

1573: are given in Table \ref{AGN_frac}.

1574: 

1575: We now examine the fraction of galaxies in the pairs versus control sample

1576: which are classified as AGN as a function of color, B/T and smoothness;

1577: our results are given in Table \ref{AGN_frac}.

1578: The smoothness parameter, $S$, is derived from the GIM2D bulge+disk

1579: fits as described in detail by Simard et al. (2002).  In brief,

1580: $S$ measures both the smoothness of the disk+bulge and its

1581: asymmetry with higher values of $S$ indicating a higher degree

1582: of asymmetry across the galaxy within 2 half light radii.  Smoothness is

1583: therefore a good indictor of morphology with later type galaxies

1584: exhibiting generally higher values of $S$ (McIntosh, Rix \& Caldwell

1585: 2004).  Here, we use $S_g$, smoothness as measured in the $g$-band.

1586: 

1587: In Figure \ref{agn_frac_fig} we show the fraction of `all' galaxies

1588: (i.e. corresponding to the first line in Table \ref{AGN_frac}) that

1589: are AGN as a function of redshift.  The control galaxies show a steady

1590: increase in AGN fraction with redshift. However, this is likely to be

1591: dominated by systematic selection rather than physical effects. Since the

1592: stellar mass distribution is strongly skewed to higher values at

1593: higher redshifts (see discussion in \S\ref{sample_sec}) and higher

1594: mass galaxies have higher AGN fractions (lines 2 and 3 in Table

1595: \ref{AGN_frac}) it is not surprising that the control galaxies exhibit

1596: increasing AGN fraction at higher redshifts.  Restricting our sample

1597: to only galaxies with stellar masses above 10.5 M$_{\odot}$ reverses

1598: the trend and gives lower AGN fractions at higher redshift.  This is

1599: likely to be due to aperture bias (e.g. Kauffmann et al. 2003a).

1600: Despite these systematic effects, we can still compare

1601: \textit{differentially} the AGN fraction in the control and pairs

1602: samples as a function of redshift.  Apart from the lowest redshift

1603: bin in Figure \ref{agn_frac_fig}, the AGN fractions are consistent

1604: between the control and the pairs samples.  However, the small

1605: number of pairs (particularly at high redshift) in each

1606: redshift bin means that the uncertainties on AGN fraction are

1607: quite high.

1608: 

1609: The results in Table \ref{AGN_frac} show that different selection

1610: criteria yield different AGN fractions.  In general, more massive,

1611: redder, elliptical (low $S_g$, high B/T)

1612:  galaxies have a higher AGN fraction than

1613: less massive, bluer, spiral galaxies.  There are a few selection

1614: criteria for which the close pairs have a higher AGN fraction

1615: than the control, e.g. $(g-r)_{\rm bulge} \ge 0.8$.  However,

1616: in no case do we see a higher AGN fraction for close pairs

1617: than for \textit{both} the wide pairs and the control samples.

1618: The wide pairs add as a consistency check because a) they

1619: do not show proximity induced effects such as enhanced SFR

1620: or offset in LZ and b) we know that the wide pairs sample

1621: is likely to be quite highly contaminated (e.g. Perez et al. 2006a).

1622: The fractions given in Table \ref{AGN_frac} therefore do not

1623: provide any convincing evidence that interactions lead to an

1624: increased AGN fraction in close pairs.

1625: A similar conclusion was reached by Barton et al. (2000)

1626: for their CfA redshift pairs sample. A larger and more recent

1627: study by Alonso et al. (2007) draws the same conclusion - the

1628: distributions of properties such as color, concentration (analogous

1629: to our B/T ratio) or morphology (measured here by $S_g$)

1630: are indistinguishable for close pairs and control galaxy samples.

1631: These results are consistent with the finding of Li et al. (2006)

1632: that only one AGN in 100  has an extra neighbour within 70 kpc

1633: compared with a control sample of non-AGN matched in mass and

1634: redshift.

1635: Extending this work beyond galaxy pairs, Miller et al. (2003), 

1636: and references therein, found that AGN fraction is 

1637: also independent of environment in groups and clusters. 

1638: Most recently, Li et al. (2008b) have used a sample of 90,000 AGN

1639: from the SDSS DR4 to demonstrate that although active galaxies

1640: with close neighbours show similar enhancements in star formation

1641: as non-AGN galaxies, the presence of close neighbours does not

1642: promote nuclear activity.

1643: Conversely, Woods \& Geller (2007) find a higher AGN

1644: fraction in both minor and major pairs compared with field

1645: galaxies in a sample of 1200 galaxies with companions in the SDSS

1646: DR5.  If we had not considered separately the close and wide

1647: pairs, and considered the latter as a `secondary control',

1648: we would have drawn an identical conclusion for some of the

1649: subsets considered in Table \ref{AGN_frac}.  However, our expectation

1650: that the wide pairs should approximate to the control sample,

1651: lead us to reject the significance of the increased AGN fraction

1652: in the three cases where it is seen in Table \ref{AGN_frac}.

1653: 

1654: The typical dynamical and burst timescales of close pairs are 

1655: typically a few hundred Myrs

1656: (Mihos \& Hernquist 1996; Barton et al. 2000), an order of magnitude

1657: shorter than the time-since-burst of the Kauffmann et al.

1658: (2003a) AGN sample.  Taken together, this paints a picture of

1659: delayed AGN activity that begins much later than the initial

1660: central starburst.  This is also the scenario provided by

1661: merger models which show that starbursts in the central

1662: regions of galaxies can be seen early in the interaction

1663: process.  However, accretion rates only increase later when the

1664: merging is much more advanced, i.e. after at least a Gyr, and the galaxy has

1665: formed a massive elliptical (e.g. Bekki \& Noguchi 1994;  Di Matteo,

1666: Springel \& Hernquist 2995;  Bekki et al. 

1667: 2006).  The simulation results are born out observationally by the work

1668: of Alonso et al. (2007) who, having found no distinction in galaxy properties

1669: for their pairs/control sample, visually classified the subset of

1670: pairs that were clearly interacting or merging.  This visual classification

1671: led to a clear distinction in the properties of galaxies that were

1672: actively merging, rather than those that were simply close in

1673: $\Delta v$ and separation.   

1674: 

1675: \section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{summary_sec}

1676: 

1677: We have presented a sample of 1716 galaxies with close ($r_p < 80$ \hkpc,

1678: $\Delta v < 500$ \kms\ and 0.1$<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 10$)

1679: companions selected from the SDSS DR4, whose properties we have

1680: compared with a control sample of 40095 galaxies.  

1681: The combination of photometric and spectroscopic data for these

1682: galaxies yields a consistent, large sample of properties

1683: including metallicity, SFR, mass, B/T ratios, colors

1684:  and AGN contribution.  Our main conclusions are

1685: 

1686: \begin{itemize}

1687: 

1688: \item \textbf{Star Formation Rate and Proximity:} Galaxy pairs have

1689: higher SFRs by up to 70\% for separations $<$ 40 \hkpc\ compared with

1690: a control sample of galaxies with equal stellar mass distribution.  This

1691: result is in agreement with inferences from numerous other studies

1692: (e.g. Barton et al. 2000; Lambas et al. 2003;

1693: Nikolic et al. 2004; Geller et al. 2006) which have measured the enhancement

1694: of H$\alpha$ equivalent width as a function of separation.

1695: 

1696: \item \textbf{Star Formation Rate and Relative Galactic Stellar Mass:}  

1697: The enhancement in SFR is largest for galaxies in pairs

1698: with mass ratios 0.5$<$ M$_1$/M$_2 < 2$ and steadily decreases 

1699: for paired galaxies with more discrepant stellar masses. 

1700: We find tentative evidence 

1701: for enhanced SFR in the less massive galaxy of a minor (mass ratio

1702: greater than 2:1) pair, but the result is not statistically

1703: significant.  The (luminosity-selected) pairs study of 

1704: Woods \& Geller (2007) provides the strongest evidence for

1705: a more enhanced SFR in the lower mass galaxy of a pair. 

1706: 

1707: \item \textbf{Luminosity- and Mass-Metallicity Relation:} We find an

1708: offset in the LZ and MZ relations for galaxies in pairs with $r_p <

1709: 30$ \hkpc\ relative to our control sample.  For galaxies with small

1710: half light radii ($r_h < 3$ \hkpc), which tend to be observed with

1711: large covering fractions in the SDSS, we find a 0.05--0.1 dex offset

1712: in the LZ relation towards lower metallicity in the pairs compared

1713: with the control.  This is consistent with the previous result of

1714: Kewley et al. (2006a).  A shift is also present in the MZ relation for

1715: large CF/small $r_h$ galaxies, at the 0.05 dex level.  Based on the LZ

1716: relation derived for absolute magnitudes in different SDSS filters we

1717: conclude that the shift is partly in metallicity ($\sim$ 0.05 dex) and

1718: partly in luminosity (up to 0.4 mags at M$_B >-20$).  We find

1719: tentative evidence that larger $r_h$ galaxies (which tend to be

1720: observed with small covering fractions) may have enhanced metallicity

1721: for a given mass/luminosity in pairs relative to the field.  We

1722: investigate what fundamental parameters may drive the empirical

1723: dependence of the LZ/MZ offsets on $r_h$.  We conclude that a

1724: dependence on bulge fraction provides a consistent picture with the

1725: observations.  In this scenario, the smaller galaxies (with half light

1726: radii typically $r_h <$ 3 \hkpc), tend to have larger bulges which

1727: delays the interaction-induced star formation.

1728: 

1729: \item  \textbf{AGN Fraction:}

1730: For given cuts in color, bulge fraction and smoothness, pairs of galaxies

1731: have AGN fractions consistent with the field, consistent with the

1732: conclusions of Barton et al. (2000) and Alonso et al. (2007).  

1733: However, redder galaxies and those with more symmetric morphologies have

1734: higher AGN fractions ($\sim$ 20--30\%) than blue or asymmetric galaxies

1735: ($\sim$5--10\%). 

1736: 

1737: \end{itemize}

1738: 

1739: Overall, our results support the picture that close interactions

1740: (within a few tens of kpc)

1741: between galaxies causes gas to inflow to the central regions,

1742: engaging new star formation.  The outer parts of the galaxy and

1743: the disk, are largely unaffected by additional star formation 

1744: (e.g. Paper II).  

1745: The process of gas infall and star formation is most efficient

1746: for approximately equal mass galaxies, and in interactions of

1747: galaxies with low bulge fractions.  The observed shift in the

1748: LZ/MZ relations depends on the relative timescales of the

1749: interactions, gas flows and induced star formation.  Based on

1750: the consistency of AGN fraction in the pairs and control samples,

1751: we conclude that all of these processes occur on timescales

1752: shorter than the activation of the central black hole.

1753: 

1754: \acknowledgements

1755: 

1756: We are indebted to both the SDSS team for their provision of quality,

1757: public datasets, and also to the Munich group for making public the

1758: results of their spectral template fitting.  This work could not have

1759: been done without the hard work and community spirit of the many

1760: people who provided these catalogs.  We are particularly grateful to

1761: Jarle Brinchmann who provided advice and guidance on using the

1762: Munich catalogs.  We are also grateful to Lisa Kewley for providing

1763: the metallicities used in this paper and to Betsy Barton for providing

1764: data on the CfA pairs sample and for several useful discussions.

1765: We also benefitted from discussions with TJ Cox, Marcin Sawicki,

1766: Evan Skillman and Christy Tremonti.

1767: SLE, LS and DRP acknowledge the receipt of NSERC Discovery Grants

1768: which funded this research.

1769: 

1770: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided 

1771: by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, 

1772: the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the 

1773: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese 

1774: Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education 

1775: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.

1776: 

1777: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the 

1778: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the 

1779: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, 

1780: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve 

1781: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the 

1782: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, 

1783: Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, 

1784: the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the 

1785: Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), 

1786: Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy 

1787: (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico 

1788: State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, 

1789: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States 

1790: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

1791: 

1792: 

1793: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1794: 

1795: 

1796: \bibitem[Alonso et al. (2006)]{alo06}

1797:         Alonso, M. S.,  Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Coldwell, G.,

1798: 	 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1029

1799: 

1800: \bibitem[Alonso et al. (2007)]{alo07}

1801:         Alonso, M. S.,  Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Coldwell, G.,

1802: 	  2007, MNRAS, 375, 1017

1803: 

1804: \bibitem[Alonso et al. (2004)]{alo04}

1805:         Alonso, M. S., Tissera, P. B., Coldwell, G., Lambas, D. G.,

1806: 	 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1081

1807: 

1808: \bibitem[Balogh et al. 1999]{bal99}

1809:         Balogh, M., Morris, S., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G.,

1810: 	Ellingson, E., 1999, ApJ, 527,54

1811: 

1812: \bibitem[Balogh et al. 1998]{bal98}

1813:         Balogh, M., Schade, D., Morris, S., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G.,

1814: 	Ellingson, E., 1998, ApJ, 504, 75

1815: 

1816: \bibitem[Barnes \& Hernquist (1992)]{bh92}

1817:         Barnes, J. E., \& Hernquist L., 1992, ARA\&A, 30, 705

1818: 

1819: \bibitem[Barnes \& Hernquist (1996)]{bh96}

1820:         Barnes, J. E., \& Hernquist, L., 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

1821: 

1822: \bibitem[Barton et al. (2008)]{bar08}

1823:         Barton, E. J., Arnold, J. A., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., 

1824: 	Wechsler, R. H., 2008, ApJ, accepted

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[Barton et al. 2001]{bar01}

1827:         Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., Bromley, B. C., van Zee, L., 

1828: 	Kenyon, S. J., 2001, AJ, 121, 625

1829: 

1830: \bibitem[Barton, Geller \& Kenyon (2000)]{bgk00}

1831:         Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., \& Kenyon, S. J., 2000, ApJ, 530, 660

1832: 

1833: \bibitem[Bekki \& Noguchi (1994)]{bn94}

1834:         Bekki, K., Noguchi, M.,  1994, A\&A, 290, 7

1835: 

1836: \bibitem[Bekki, Shioya \& Whiting (2006)]{bsw06}

1837:         Bekki, K., Shioya, Y., \& Whiting, M., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 805

1838: 

1839: \bibitem[Blanton \& Berlind 2007]{bbh07}

1840:         Blanton, M. R., Berlind. A. A., 

1841: 	2007, ApJ, 664, 791

1842: 

1843: \bibitem[Bresolin (2004)]{bre07}

1844:          Bresolin, F., 2007, ApJ, 656, 186

1845: 

1846: \bibitem[Bresolin, Garnett \& Kennicutt (2004)]{bgk04}

1847:          Bresolin, F., Garnett, D. R., \& Kennicutt, R. C.,

1848: 	 2004, ApJ, 615, 228

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al. 2004]{bri04}

1851:         Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., 

1852: 	Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Brinkmann, J.,2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151  

1853: 

1854: \bibitem[Brinchmann \& Ellis (2000)]{be02} 

1855:         Brinchmann, J., \& Ellis, R. S.,  2000, ApJ, 536, L77

1856: 

1857: \bibitem[Brooks et al. (2007)]{bro07}

1858:         Brooks, A. M., Governato, F., Booth, C. M., Willman, B., 

1859: 	Gardner, J. P., Wadsley, J., Stinson, G., Quinn, T.,

1860: 	 2007, ApJ, 655, L17

1861: 

1862: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot (1993)]{bc93}

1863:         Bruzual, A. G., \& Charlot, S., 1993, ApJ, 405, 538

1864: 

1865: \bibitem[Bushouse (1987)]{bus87}

1866:         Bushouse, H. A., 1987, ApJ, 320, 49

1867: 

1868: \bibitem[Byrd \& Valtonen (1990)]{bv90}

1869: 	Byrd, G., Valtonen, M., 1990, ApJ, 350, 89

1870: 

1871: %\bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton \& Mathis (1989)]{ccm89}

1872: %        Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., \& Mathis, J. S., 1989,

1873: %        ApJ, 345, 245

1874: 

1875: 

1876: \bibitem[Carlberg et al. (1994)]{carl94}

1877:         Carlberg, R. G., Pritchet, C. J., Infante, L., 1994, ApJ, 435, 540

1878: 

1879: \bibitem[Cox et al. (2007)]{cox07}

1880:         Cox, T. J., Jonsson, P., Somerville, R. S., Primack, J. R.,

1881: 	Dekel, A., MNRAS, 2007, submitted, arXiv:0709.3511

1882: 

1883: \bibitem[de la Rosa et al. (2007)]{dlr07}

1884:         de la Rosa, I. G., de Carvalho, R. R., Vazdekis, A., Barbuy, 

1885: 	B., 2007,  AJ, 133, 330

1886: 

1887: \bibitem[Denicolo, Terlevich \& Terlevich (2002)]{dtt02}

1888:         Denicolo, G., Terlevich, R., \& Terlevich, E.,

1889: 	2002, MNRAS, 330, 69

1890: 

1891: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al. (2005)]{dim05}

1892:         Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., 2005, Nature, 433, 604

1893: 

1894: \bibitem[Diaferio et al. 2001]{dia01}

1895:         Diaferio, A., Kauffmann, G., Balogh, M. L., White, S. D. M., 

1896: 	Schade, D., Ellingson, E., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 999

1897: 

1898: \bibitem[Dressler 1980]{dres80}

1899:         Dressler, A., 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1900: 

1901: \bibitem[Drory et al. (2004)]{dro04}

1902:         Drory, N., Bender, R., Hopp, U.,  2004, ApJ, 616, L103

1903: 

1904: \bibitem[Ellison \& Kewley (2005)]{ek05}

1905:         Ellison, S. L., Kewley, L. J.,	2005, pg 53,

1906: 	Proceedings of "The Fabulous Destiny of Galaxies; 

1907: 	Bridging the Past and Present", Eds Le Brun, Mazure, 

1908: 	Arnouts, Burgarella

1909: 

1910: \bibitem[Ellison et al. (2008)]{sle08}

1911:          Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., McConnachie, A. W.,

1912: 	 2008, ApJ, 672, L107

1913: 

1914: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Ford (2005)]{ff05}

1915:         Ferrarese, L., \& Ford, H., 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523

1916: 

1917: \bibitem[Finlator \& Dave (2007)]{fd07}

1918:         Finlator, K., \& Dav\'e, R., 2007, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:0704.3100

1919: 

1920: \bibitem[Friedli \& Benz (1993)]{fb93}

1921:         Friedli, D., \& Benz, W., 1993, A\&A, 268, 65

1922: 

1923: \bibitem[Geller et al. (2006)]{gel06}

1924:         Geller, M. J., Kenyon, S. J., Barton, E. J., Jarrett, T. H., 

1925: 	Kewley, L. J., 2006, AJ, 132, 2243

1926: 

1927: \bibitem[Gerin, M.; Combes, F.; Athanassoula, E. 1990]{gca90}

1928:         Gerin, M., Combes, F., Athanassoula, E.,

1929: 	 1990, A\&A, 230, 37

1930: 

1931: \bibitem[Gomez et al. (2003)]{gom03}

1932:         Gomez, P., et al., 2003, ApJ, 584, 210

1933: 

1934: %\bibitem[Hopkins et al. (2001)]{hop01}

1935: %        Hopkins, A. M., Connolly, A. J., Haarsma, D. B., Cram, L. E.,

1936: %	 2001, AJ, 122, 288

1937: 

1938: \bibitem[Hoopes et al. (2008)]{hoo08}

1939:         Hoopes, C. G., et al. 2008, ApJS, in press, astro-ph/0609415

1940: 

1941: \bibitem[Hummel (1981)]{hum81}

1942:         Hummel, E., 1981, A\&A, 96, 111

1943: 

1944: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al. (2003)]{kau03a} %agn

1945: 	Kauffmann, G., et al., 2003a, MNRAS, 346, 1055

1946: 

1947: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al. (2003)]{kau03b} %sdss masses

1948: 	Kauffmann, G., et al., 2003b, MNRAS, 341, 33

1949: 

1950: \bibitem[Kennicutt et al. (1987)]{ken87}

1951:         Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Roettiger, K. A., Keel, W. C., van der Hulst, 

1952: 	J. M., Hummel, E., 1987, AJ, 93, 1011

1953: 

1954: \bibitem[Kewley \& Dopita (2002)]{kd02}

1955:         Kewley, L. J., \& Dopita, M. A., 2002, ApJS, 142, 35

1956: 

1957: \bibitem[Kewley \& Ellison (2008)]{ke08}

1958:         Kewley, L. J., \& Ellison, S. L., 2008, ApJ, accepted

1959: 

1960: \bibitem[Kewley et al. (2006a)]{kewl06a}

1961:          Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., Barton, E. J.,

1962: 	  2006a, AJ, 131, 2004

1963: 

1964: \bibitem[Kewley et al. (2006b)]{kewl06b}

1965:          Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., \& Heckman, T.,

1966: 	  2006b, MNRAS, 372, 961

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[Kewley et al (2001)]{kew01}

1969:         Kewley, L. J., Heisler, C. A., Dopita, M. A., Lumsden, S.,

1970: 	2001, ApJS, 132, 37

1971: 

1972: \bibitem[Kewley et al. (2005)]{kjg05}

1973:          Kewley, L. J., Jansen, R. A., Geller, M. J., 

1974: 	  2005, PASP, 117, 227

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[Kobulnicky, Kennicutt \& Pizagno (1999)]{kkp99}

1977:         Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Pizagno, J. L.,

1978: 	1999, ApJ, 514, 544

1979: 

1980: \bibitem[Kobulnicky \& Kewley (2004)]{KK04} 

1981:         Kobulnicky, H. A., \& Kewley, L. J., 2004, ApJ, 617, 240 

1982: 

1983: %\bibitem[Kobulnicky et al. (2003)]{k03}

1984: %        Kobulnicky, H. A., Willmer, C. N. A., Weiner, B. J., Koo, D. C., 

1985: %	Phillips, A. C., Faber, S. M., Sarajedini, V., Simard, L.,

1986: %	Vogt, N., 2003, ApJ, 599, 1006

1987: 

1988: \bibitem[Koppen, Weidner \& Kroupa (2007)]{kwk07}

1989:         Koppen, J., Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 673

1990: 

1991: \bibitem[Lambas et al. (2003)]{lam03}

1992:         Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., Coldwell, G.,

1993: 	2003, MNRAS, 346, 1189

1994: 

1995: \bibitem[Larson \& Tinsley (1978)]{lt78}

1996:         Larson, R. B., \& Tinsley, B. M.,  1978, ApJ, 219, 46

1997: 

1998: \bibitem[Lee et al. (2006)]{lee06}

1999:         Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., Jackson, D. C., 

2000: 	Gehrz, R. D., Polomski, E. F., Woodward, C. E.,

2001: 	 2006, ApJ, 647, 970

2002: 

2003: \bibitem[Lewis et al (2002)]{lew02}

2004:         Lewis, I., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 673

2005: 

2006: \bibitem[Li et al. (2008a)]{li08a}

2007:         Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Jing, Y. P., White, S. D. M.,

2008: 	2008a, MNRAS submitted, arXiv:0712.3792v1

2009: 

2010: \bibitem[Li et al. (2008b)]{li08b}

2011:         Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M.,

2012: 	Jing, Y. P., 2008b, MNRAS submitted, arXiv:0712.0383v1

2013: 

2014: \bibitem[Li et al. (2006)]{li06}

2015:         Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Wang, L., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., 

2016: 	Jing, Y. P., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 457 

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Maier et al. 2005]{mai05}

2019:         Maier, C., Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Stockton, A., Brodwin, M.,

2020: 	2005, ApJ, 634, 849

2021: 

2022: \bibitem[Marconi et al. (2004)]{mar04}

2023:         Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., 

2024: 	Salvati, M., 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169

2025: 

2026: \bibitem[Martin \& Roy 1994]{mr94}

2027:         Martin, P., \& Roy, J.-R.,  1994, ApJ, 424, 599

2028: 

2029: \bibitem[Masjedi et al. (2006)]{mas06}

2030:         Masjedi, M., et al.,  2006, ApJ, 644, 54

2031: 

2032: \bibitem[Mastropietro et al (2005)]{mas05}

2033:         Mastropietro, C., Moore, B., Mayer, L., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J.,

2034: 	2005, MNRAS, 363, 509

2035: 

2036: \bibitem[McGaugh (1991)]{m91}

2037:         McGaugh, S. S., 1991, ApJ, 380, 140

2038: 

2039: \bibitem[McIntosh, Rix \& Caldwell (2004)]{mrc04}

2040:        McIntosh, D. H., Rix, H.-W., Caldwell, N., 2004, ApJ, 610, 161

2041: 

2042: \bibitem[Mendes de Oliveira et al. (2005)]{mdo05}

2043:         Mendes de Oliveira, C., Coelho, P., González, J. J., Barbuy, B.,

2044: 	2005, AJ, 130, 55

2045: 

2046: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist (1994)]{mh94}

2047:         Mihos, C., \& Hernquist, L., 1994, ApJ, 425, L13

2048: 

2049: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist (1996)]{mh96}

2050:         Mihos, C., \& Hernquist, L., 1996, ApJ, 464, 641

2051: 

2052: \bibitem[Miller et al. (2003)]{mill03}

2053:        	Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., Gomez, P. L., Hopkins, A. M., 

2054: 	Bernardi, M., 2003, ApJ, 597, 142

2055: 

2056: \bibitem[Moore et al. (1999)]{moo99}

2057:         Moore, B., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 465

2058: 

2059: \bibitem[Mouhcine, Baldry \& Bamford (2007)]{mbb07}

2060:         Mouhcine, M., Baldry, I. K., Bamford, S. P., 2007, MNRAS

2061: 	382, 801

2062: 

2063: \bibitem[Nikolic, Cullen \& Alexander (2004)]{nca04}

2064:         Nikolic, B., Cullen, H., Alexander, P., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 874

2065: 

2066: %\bibitem[Osterbrock(1989)]{Osterbrock89}

2067: %         Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and

2068: %         Active Galactic Nuclei (Mill Valley; University Science Books)

2069: 

2070: \bibitem[Pagel et al. (1979)]{pag79}

2071:         Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., 

2072: 	Smith, G., 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95

2073: 

2074: \bibitem[Patton \& Atfield (2008)]{pa08}

2075:         Patton, D. R., \& Atfield, J. E. 2008, ApJ, submitted

2076: 

2077: \bibitem[Patton et al. (2000)]{pat00}

2078:         Patton, D. R., Carlberg, R. G., Marzke, R. O., Pritchet, C. J., 

2079: 	da Costa, L. N., Pellegrini, P. S., 2000, ApJ, 536, 153

2080: 

2081: \bibitem[Patton et al. (2005)]{pat05}

2082:          Patton, D. R., Grant, J. K., Simard, L., Pritchet, C. J., 

2083: 	 Carlberg, R. G., Borne, K. D., 2005, AJ, 130, 2043

2084: 

2085: \bibitem[Patton et al. (1997)]{pat97}

2086:         Patton, D. R., Pritchet, C. J., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., 

2087: 	Carlberg, R. G., 1997, ApJ, 475, 29

2088: 

2089: \bibitem[Perez et al. (2006)]{per06a}  % SFR

2090:         Perez, M. J., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., Scannapieco, C.,  

2091: 	2006a, A\&A, 449, 23

2092: 

2093: \bibitem[Perez et al. (2006)]{per06b} % metals

2094:         Perez, M. J., Tissera, P. B., Scannapieco, C., Lambas, D. G., 

2095: 	de Rossi, M. E., 2006b, A\&A, 459, 361

2096: 

2097: \bibitem[Pettini \& Pagel (2004)]{pp04}

2098:         Pettini, M., \& Pagel, B. E. J., 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59

2099: 

2100: \bibitem[Pimbblet et al (2002)]{pim02}

2101:         Pimbblet, K, Smail, I., Kodama, T., Couch, W., Edge, A., 

2102: 	Zabludoff, A.,  O' Hely, E., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 333

2103: 

2104: \bibitem[Poggianti et al. 1999]{pog99}

2105:         Poggianti, B., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W.,

2106: 	Barger, A., Butcher, H., Ellis, R.,  Oemler, A., 1999, ApJ, 518, 576

2107: 

2108: \bibitem[Proctor et al. (2004)]{proc04}

2109:         Proctor, R. N., Forbes, D. A., Hau, G. K. T., Beasley, M. A., 

2110: 	De Silva, G. M., Contreras, R., Terlevich, A. I., 

2111: 	 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1381

2112: 

2113: \bibitem[Rupke, Veilleux \& Baker (2007)]{rvb07}

2114:         Rupke, D. S. N., Veilleux, S., \& Baker, A. J., 2007, ApJ,

2115: 	in press, arXiv:0708.1766

2116: 

2117: \bibitem[Salzer et al. (2005)]{sal05}

2118:          Salzer, J. J., Lee, J. C., Melbourne, J., Hinz, J. L., 

2119: 	 Alonso-Herrero, A., Jangren, A., 2005, ApJ, 624, 661

2120: 

2121: \bibitem[Schmitt (2001)]{sch01}

2122:         Schmitt, H. R.,  2001, AJ, 122, 2243

2123: 

2124: \bibitem[Shankar et al. (2004)]{sha04}

2125:         Shankar, F., Salucci, P., Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Danese, L.,

2126: 	2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020

2127: 

2128: \bibitem[Shioya, Bekii \& Couch (2004)]{sbc04}

2129:         Shioya, Y., Bekki, K., \& Couch, W. J., 2004, ApJ, 601, 654

2130: 

2131: \bibitem[Simard et al. (2002)]{sim02}

2132:         Simard, L., Willmer, C. N. A., Vogt, N. P., Sarajedini, V. L., 

2133: 	Phillips, A. C., Weiner, B. J., Koo, D. C., Im, M., 

2134: 	Illingworth, G. D., Faber, S. M., 2002, ApJS, 142, 1

2135: 

2136: \bibitem[Smith et al. (2007)]{smi07}

2137:          Smith, B. J., Struck, C., Hancock, M., Appleton, P. N., 

2138: 	 Charmandaris, V., Reach, W. T., 2007, AJ, 133, 791

2139: 

2140: \bibitem[Sorrentino, Radovich \& Rifatto (2006)]{srr06}

2141:         Sorrentino, G., Radovich, M., Rifatto, A., 2006, A\&A, 451, 809

2142: 

2143: \bibitem[Stauffer (1982)]{sta82}

2144:         Stauffer, J. R., 1982, ApJ, 262, 66

2145: 

2146: \bibitem[Storchi-Bergmann et al. (2001)]{sto01}

2147:         Storchi-Bergmann, T., Gonzalez-Delgado, R. M., Schmitt, H. R., 

2148: 	Cid-Fernandes, R., Heckman, T., 2001, ApJ, 559, 147	

2149: 

2150: \bibitem[Strauss et al. (2002)]{str02}

2151:         Strauss, M. A., et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 1810

2152: 

2153: \bibitem[Tremonti et al. 2004]{2113} 

2154:         Tremonti, C., et al., 2004, ApJ, 693, 898

2155: 

2156: \bibitem[Wake et al. (2005)]{wake05}

2157:         Wake, D. A., Collins, C. A., Nichol, R. C., Jones, L. R., Burke, D. J.,

2158: 	2005, ApJ, 627, 186

2159: 

2160: \bibitem[Whitmore, Gilmore, \& Jones (1993)]{wgj93}

2161:          Whitmore, B. C., Gilmore, D. M.,  \& Jones, C., 1993, ApJ, 407, 489

2162: 

2163: \bibitem[Woods \& Geller (2007)]{fwg07}

2164:         Woods, D. F., Geller, M. J., 

2165: 	2007, AJ, 134, 527

2166: 

2167: \bibitem[Woods et al. (2006)]{fw06}

2168:         Woods, D. F., Geller, M. J., Barton, E. J.,

2169: 	2006, AJ, 132, 197

2170: 

2171: \bibitem[Zaritsky, Kennicutt \& Huchra (1994)]{zkh94}

2172:         Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Huchra, J. P., 1994,

2173: 	ApJ, 420, 87

2174: 

2175: \bibitem[Zheng et al. (2007)]{zh07}

2176:          Zheng, Z. X., et al., 2007, ApJ, 661, L47

2177: 

2178: \end{thebibliography}

2179: 

2180: \clearpage

2181: 

2182: % TABLES

2183: 

2184: %\begin{landscape}

2185: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}

2186: \tablewidth{8.0in}

2187: \rotate

2188: \tablecaption{\label{AGN_frac}AGN Fractions} 

2189: \tablehead{

2190: \colhead{Selection criteria} &

2191: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Number of Galaxies} & %[.2ex] \cline{2-4}

2192: \multicolumn{3}{c}{AGN Fraction} \\ [.2ex]\cline{2-4} \cline{5-7}

2193: \colhead{} &

2194: \colhead{Control} &

2195: \colhead{Wide Pairs} &

2196: \colhead{Close Pairs} &

2197: \colhead{Control} &

2198: \colhead{Wide Pairs} &

2199: \colhead{Close Pairs} \\

2200: }

2201: \startdata

2202:  & &  \\

2203: All galaxies & 30052 & 936 & 502 &  0.12$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.14$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.13$\pm$ 0.02 \\ 

2204: Log M$_{\star} < 10.2$ M$_{\odot}$ & 13059 & 432 & 237 &  0.02$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.03$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.00$\pm$ 0.01 \\

2205: Log M$_{\star} \ge 10.2$ M$_{\odot}$ & 16993 & 504 & 265 &  0.20$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.24$\pm$ 0.02 &  0.25$\pm$ 0.03 \\ 

2206: $(g-r)_{\rm bulge} < 0.8$ & 14644 & 543 & 337 &  0.08$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.09$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.08$\pm$ 0.02 \\ 

2207: $(g-r)_{\rm bulge} \ge 0.8$ & 15408 & 393 & 165 &  0.16$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.22$\pm$ 0.02 &  0.24$\pm$ 0.04 \\ 

2208: $(g-r)_{\rm disk} < 0.5$ & 14173 & 441 & 257 &  0.04$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.07$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07$\pm$ 0.02 \\

2209: $(g-r)_{\rm disk} \ge 0.5$ & 15879 & 495 & 245 &  0.19$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.21$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.20$\pm$ 0.03 \\ 

2210: B/T $<$0.2 & 14041 & 388 & 124 &  0.05$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.06$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 \\ 

2211: B/T$\ge$0.2 & 16011 & 548 & 378 &  0.18$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.20$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.15$\pm$ 0.02 \\ 

2212: $S_g < 0.1$ & 18856 & 518 & 213 &  0.15$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.20$\pm$ 0.02 & 0.19$\pm$ 0.03 \\ 

2213: $S_g \ge 0.1$ & 11196 & 418 & 289 &  0.08$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.07$\pm$ 0.01 & 0.09$\pm$ 0.02 \\

2214: $S_g < 0.1$, $(g-r)_{\rm bulge} \ge$ 0.8  & 9614 & 220 & 69 &  0.19$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.29$\pm$ 0.04 &  0.33$\pm$ 0.07 \\

2215: $S_g < 0.1$, $(g-r)_{\rm disk} \ge 0.5$,  & 4584 & 105 & 29 &  0.33$\pm$ 0.01 &  0.47$\pm$ 0.07 &  0.52$\pm$ 0.14 \\

2216: $(g-r)_{\rm bulge} \ge 0.8$ & & & & & & \\

2217: \enddata

2218: \end{deluxetable}

2219: %\end{landscape}

2220: 

2221: % FIGURES

2222: 

2223: \clearpage

2224: \begin{figure*}

2225: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2226: {\includegraphics{f1.eps}}}}

2227: \caption{\label{z_histo_nocull} Top panel:  Redshift histogram 

2228: of the \textit{candidate} control galaxy 

2229: sample (solid) and \textit{candidate} wide pairs sample (dashed),

2230: with the latter scaled for display purposes.  

2231: Middle panel: Covering fraction as a function of redshift for our

2232: control (black dots) and pairs (open circles) samples. Bottom panel: 

2233: Separations of galaxy pairs as a function of redshift (symbols as

2234: before).  

2235: The diagonal solid line shows a constant 

2236: angular separation of $55\arcsec$, corresponding to the SDSS

2237: fiber collision limit.}

2238: \end{figure*}

2239: 

2240: 

2241: \clearpage

2242: \begin{figure*}

2243: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2244: {\includegraphics{f2.eps}}}}

2245: \caption{\label{z_histo_cull}

2246: Histograms of redshift (top panel), mass (middle panel) and $g$-band

2247: covering fraction (bottom panel) of our final control galaxy (solid) and wide 

2248: pairs (dashed) samples, with the latter scaled for display purposes.

2249:   }

2250: \end{figure*}

2251: 

2252: 

2253: \clearpage

2254: \begin{figure*}

2255: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2256: {\includegraphics{f3.eps}}}}

2257: \caption{\label{m1m2_f1f2}Comparison between relative r-band

2258: fluxes and relative masses in the wide pairs sample. The solid

2259: diagonal line shows a one-to-one relationship between flux and mass ratios.}

2260: \end{figure*}

2261: 

2262: \clearpage

2263: \begin{figure*}

2264: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2265: {\includegraphics{f4.eps}}}}

2266: \caption{\label{sfr_m1m2} SFR for galaxies with a companion, as

2267: a function of pair separation for three different mass ratio samples.

2268: The SFRs have all been normalized to the median control value for

2269: that mass range.  This figure

2270: shows an increase in SFR relative to the field for projected separations

2271: $r_p < 30$ \hkpc\ for all mass ratios.  As the disparity in masses

2272: decreases (from top panel to bottom), this enhancement increases in

2273: magnitude, significance and out to larger separations.  The apparent

2274: increase in SFR at $r_p > 50$ \hkpc\ is due to contamination effects,

2275: see text for details.}

2276: \end{figure*}

2277: 

2278: \clearpage

2279: \begin{figure*}

2280: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2281: {\includegraphics{f5.eps}}}}

2282: \caption{\label{sfr_mass} SFR for galaxies with a companion, as

2283: a function of pair separation for three different mass samples.

2284: The first column of 3 panels represents major pairs (mass ratio $<$ 2:1, 

2285: the middle 3

2286: are the less massive galaxies in minor pairs and the right-most 

2287: column are the more massive galaxies in minor pairs.

2288: Upper panels: individual galaxies. middle panels: SFRs binned by separation.  

2289: The gray region shows the field median for galaxies

2290: with a matched mass distribution (see text for details). 

2291: Lower panel: SFRs normalized to the median control value.

2292: The left-hand panels for major mergers confirm the results of Figure

2293: \ref{sfr_m1m2}.  We find no convincing evidence for

2294: enhanced SFR in minor mass pairs.}

2295: \end{figure*}

2296: 

2297: \clearpage

2298: \begin{figure*}

2299: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2300: {\includegraphics{f6.eps}}}}

2301: \caption{\label{LZ} Luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relations for our control

2302: sample (black dots) compared with galaxies with close companions 

2303: (open points) for various

2304: cuts in $g$-band fiber covering fraction (CF).  }

2305: \end{figure*}

2306: 

2307: \clearpage

2308: \begin{figure*}

2309: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2310: {\includegraphics{f7.eps}}}}

2311: \caption{\label{LZ_bin} Luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relations for our

2312: SDSS pairs sample (circles) and the CfA/NFGS sample (stars)

2313: of Kewley et al. (2006). In all panels, filled points refer to 

2314: control samples and open points to pairs. For the SDSS sample, we

2315: show both the full control/pairs sample and CF cuts as in Figure \ref{LZ}

2316: (see panel labels).  The Kewley

2317: et al. (2006) data also correspond to CF$\sim$10\% and are shown

2318: both unbinned (bottom left panel) and binned (bottom right panel). }

2319: \end{figure*}

2320: 

2321: \clearpage

2322: \begin{figure*}

2323: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2324: {\includegraphics{f8.eps}}}}

2325: \caption{\label{compare_kewley} Luminosity-metallicity (LZ) 

2326: relations for the control samples of Kewley et al. (2006)

2327: and this paper (top panel) and the pairs from the same works

2328: (bottom panel).  Symbols are as before -- filled points are

2329: control, open points are pairs; stars are for Kewley et al. (2006)

2330: circles/dots for the SDSS.  Only the CF$<$10\% galaxies from the SDSS

2331: have been plotted in order to be comparable with Kewley et al.}

2332: \end{figure*}

2333: 

2334: \clearpage

2335: \begin{figure*}

2336: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2337: {\includegraphics{f9.eps}}}}

2338: \caption{\label{rh_histo} Half light radii for the CfA pairs sample

2339: (top panel), SDSS pairs with CF$<$10\% (middle panel) and SDSS

2340: pairs with $20<$ CF $<50$\% (bottom panel). }

2341: \end{figure*}

2342: 

2343: \clearpage

2344: \begin{figure*}

2345: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2346: {\includegraphics{f10.eps}}}}

2347: \caption{\label{LZ_rh} Luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relations for our

2348: SDSS pairs sample. In all panels, filled points refer to 

2349: control samples and open points to pairs. The panels show different

2350: cuts in galaxy half light radius.  }

2351: \end{figure*}

2352: 

2353: \clearpage

2354: \begin{figure*}

2355: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2356: {\includegraphics{f11.eps}}}}

2357: \caption{\label{MZ} Mass-metallicity (MZ) relations for our control

2358: sample (black dots) compared with galaxies with close companions 

2359: (open points) for various

2360: cuts in $g$-band fiber covering fraction (CF). }

2361: \end{figure*}

2362: 

2363: \clearpage

2364: \begin{figure*}

2365: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2366: {\includegraphics{f12.eps}}}}

2367: \caption{\label{MZ_bin} Mass-metallicity (MZ) relations for our control

2368: sample (filled circles) compared with galaxies with close companions 

2369: (open circles) for all values of CF (top panel), and CF$<$10\%

2370: (bottom panel) binned by log stellar mass. }

2371: \end{figure*}

2372: 

2373: \clearpage

2374: \begin{figure*}

2375: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2376: {\includegraphics{f13.eps}}}}

2377: \caption{\label{LZ_ugri} Luminosity-metallicity (LZ) relations for our control

2378: sample (filled circles) compared with galaxies with close companions 

2379: (open circles) for $20 <$ CF $<50$\%.  The four panels show the LZ

2380: relation as determined for absolute magnitudes in four different SDSS

2381: filters: $u, g, r$ and $i$. The persistence of an offset in the LZ

2382: relation even in the reddest SDSS filters indicates that the shift

2383: is predominantly in metallicity, not higher luminositites due to increased

2384: star formation.}

2385: \end{figure*}

2386: 

2387: \clearpage

2388: \begin{figure*}

2389: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2390: {\includegraphics{f14.eps}}}}

2391: \caption{\label{tdyn} The luminosity-metallicity relation for SDSS

2392: close pairs (open circles) and control galaxies (filled circles)

2393: divided by dynamical time (left panels) and bulge fraction (right

2394: panels).  }

2395: \end{figure*}

2396: 

2397: \clearpage

2398: \begin{figure*}

2399: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2400: {\includegraphics{f15.eps}}}}

2401: \caption{\label{bti_histo} Histogram of $i$-band B/T ratios for galaxies

2402: in pairs.  The solid line shows galaxies with $r_h < 3$ \hkpc\ and

2403: the dashed line is for larger galaxies.  The solid histogram has been

2404: scaled up by a factor of 4 for display purposes.  }

2405: \end{figure*}

2406: 

2407: \clearpage

2408: \begin{figure*}

2409: \centerline{\rotatebox{0}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2410: {\includegraphics{f16.eps}}}}

2411: \caption{\label{gmr_bulge_bt} $g-r$ colors for control (solid histogram)

2412: and paired (dashed histogram) galaxies for three cuts in bulge

2413: fraction (B/T).  Each panel is labelled with the median color

2414: of the pair and control galaxy distribution and the KS probability

2415: that the two are drawn from the same parent population. }

2416: \end{figure*}

2417: 

2418: \clearpage

2419: \begin{figure*}

2420: \centerline{\rotatebox{270}{\resizebox{13cm}{!}

2421: {\includegraphics{f17.eps}}}}

2422: \caption{\label{agn_frac_fig} AGN fraction for all control galaxies

2423: (filled black rectangles) and close pairs (gray shaded rectangles)

2424: as a function of redshift.  The width of each rectangle shows the

2425: size of the redshift bin, and the height indicates the median

2426: AGN fraction in that bin and its spread based on Poisson statistics. }

2427: \end{figure*}

2428: 

2429: 

2430: 

2431: \end{document}

2432: